Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL (by Order) ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Bankruptcies

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many bankruptcies occurred in England and Wales in 1952; and how this compares with 1950.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister answers Question No. 1, I feel sure that the House will continue the indulgence granted to him on the last occasion of remaining standing between the Questions addressed to him.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thomeycroft): I am much obliged, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: It was agreed last week that the right hon. Gentleman should be permitted to stand while replying to Questions. Could he not sit down and reply to the Questions while seated? I suggest that that would be more sensible, Sir.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I prefer to stand.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The answer to Question No. 1 is as follows: In 1952 there were 2,043 bankruptcies, and in 1950, 1,823.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not clear from these figures that, under Tory rule, "The Right Road for Britain" is, in fact, Carey Street?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that deduction would be a very dangerous one for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to draw, because there was a very substantial increase in the number of bankruptcies under the last Government.

Unemployment, Lancashire

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade the policy of the Government with regard to the continued increase in total unemployment in Lancashire.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: While I know, of course, and regret that there has been some increase in the number of people wholly unemployed in Lancashire since mid 1952, I am glad to say that unemployment as a whole in Lancashire began to decrease from that time. The number of people out of work—both wholly unemployed and temporarily stopped— was 76,000 in January, 1953, compared with 136,000 in May, 1952. We shall continue to take measures, including those which I announced on 29th October, 1952, to deal with the increase in the number of those wholly unemployed.

Mr. Hale: When he gives the figures in future, will the right hon. Gentleman compare the figures of employment when this Government came into office, with those before they had mucked up the textile industry and caused such a frightful disaster? Will he also bear in mind that the really tragic figure, the important figure, is the number of those who have been wholly unemployed for more than six weeks? That is the figure which is constantly and steadily growing.

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman, and those of his hon. Friends who are closely concerned with that industry, will study the history of the last year in Lancashire he will agree that forces far wider than mere party political forces are responsible.

Mr. Osborne: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that it was not this Government that mucked up the Lancashire textile industry? A United Nations report for the 12 months before the last Government went out of office said that the


textile industry of the whole world was suffering and that it was a world problem and nothing to do with this or the previous Government.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is true to say, as hon. Gentlemen know, that the recession in textiles was world-wide in its incidence, and, indeed, started before this Government took office.

Textile Engineering Industry (Monopoly Commission)

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade what additional industries he is preparing to refer for the consideration of the Monopolies Commission; and whether he will refer the textile engineering industry for that consideration.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I will bear in mind the suggestion in the second part of the Question.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged for that answer, but would the Minister bear in mind that in Oldham and the adjoining area there is very substantial unemployment among textile machine makers, and that we are getting report after report saying that the textile industry is badly equipped and cannot maintain efficiency for lack of machines? This is not a world problem; it is a problem for the Government.

Mr. Thorneycroft: As I told the hon. Gentleman, I am not in a position to give a definite list of industries which are to be referred, but this, with other industries, is a matter for consideration.

Nylon Stockings (Sale Conditions)

Mrs. Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that many shopkeepers impose conditions on the sale of nylon stockings and that wholesalers impose similar conditions on shopkeepers; and if he will take powers to regulate these conditions of sale.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware that there are such practices, but they are not necessarily undesirable. In so far as they are, I am satisfied of the adequacy of the existing powers in Section 9 of the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941 which, subject to specified exceptions, make it an offence for a trader to impose conditions on the sale of price controlled goods.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I feel very disappointed that in his opening remark he gave his blessing to this practice? Does he understand that the practice is to offer two pairs of cheap rayon stockings with one pair of nylons, and would he use his influence to try to stop that practice?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope that the hon. Lady has not misunderstood me. What I meant was that it may be that a favour is sometimes shown to a regular customer in a shop; but where a trader tries to enforce, as a condition of sale, that the purchaser shall buy a fur coat or some other article as well, that is an offence and I think that it can be dealt with.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a constant practice, in connection with mail order advertisements, to offer nylons on condition that rayons are taken?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Lady will call attention to any particular case I shall be pleased to look into it.

Coronation (London Hotel Prices)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as the prices for Coronation week in some London hotels have risen by from 100 per cent. to 150 per cent., he will now introduce legislation to ensure that prices are exhibited outside hotels.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I do not consider that such legislation is desirable, or that it would serve any useful purpose.

Miss Burton: is: there anything that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do? Does he remember that some months ago he said that he was not out of sympathy with the objective I was pursuing? Is he aware that many of the hotels have put up their prices to a large extent, and would not it be a good idea if we knew what those increases were?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that special legislation, introduced and rushed through the House of Commons now, to compel hotels in London to exhibit the prices to be charged for Coronation week, bearing in mind that they have already let most of the accommodation, would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Colegate: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering this matter, the prices charged to visitors in New York and other cities?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the prices charged in New York are a matter for the Minister.

Miss Ward: On a point of order. Once again may I ask you, Sir, whether, if we are to discuss hotels run by private enterprise, provision cannot be made for us to discuss hotels which are owned by nationalised industries? Is not it very unfair that one section of the community should be subjected to question and not the other section?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in this Question about hotels owned by nationalised industries, so the point does not arise here.

Miss Ward: May I ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I have answered the hon. Lady's point of order.

Furniture (Standards)

Mrs. Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to prevent the furniture shops being stocked with shoddy goods pending the announcement of standards by the Furniture Development Council.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to what my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said during the debate on the D Scheme for furniture on 21st January on the question of quality standards and the progress which had been made by the British Standards Institution, in consultation with the industry, in producing British standards for furniture.

Mrs. Mann: While I appreciate the statement that was made, it seems to me that there might be a very big time lag during which there might be a great deal of shoddy goods on the market. Would the right hon. Gentleman see that there is no time lag?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Lady would study the speech made by my hon. and learned Friend on this occasion, she will find that that question was very fully dealt with. I do not accept the suggestion that furniture manufacturers are placing a lot of shoddy goods in the shops.

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation making it compulsory for all furniture to be marked with the name and address of the manufacturers.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the furniture trade unions are very much in favour of this, and could he not agree that the customer who buys furniture in the shop should have some redress if he is unfortunate enough to make a bad buy?

Mr. Thomeycroft: I have given some consideration to these proposals, and I have come to the conclusion that their adoption would be quite contrary to the general policy of getting voluntary arrangements for the marking of goods on quality standards.

Textile Industry (Recovery)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the general position in the textile industry, with emphasis on the export trade.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am glad to say that by the end of 1952 production of textiles and clothing had increased by over 40 per cent. and exports by about 20 per cent., from the levels to which they had dropped during the recession, although exports to many markets are still hampered by import restrictions. While all of us in this House will welcome this recovery, we should all agree that it is vitally important that all sections of the textile industries should continue to make the greatest possible efforts to increase their competitive power. With such efforts, I am confident that, in spite of growing competition from other countries, we can continue to look to our textile industries for a very substantial contribution to the export trade.

Air Commodore Harvey: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply and expressing the view that no doubt everybody will be glad to hear of the improvement, may I ask him if he knows that many sections of the industry are still finding it extremely difficult to export because of the high rate of Purchase Tax on the home market, where sales are essential if we are to export


well? Would he pass on that information to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see what can be done about it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that that raises rather a separate question from that on the Order Paper.

Factories, Huyton (Employment)

10. Mr. H. Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the numbers now employed on the North-West Industrial Estates Company's factory estate at Huyton; and the numbers he expects will be employed when the factories, now in course of development there, are in full production.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Two hundred and twenty persons are now employed in factories on the North-Western Industrial Estate Company's Factory Estate at Huyton; and according to the estimates made by the firms when the factories were allocated this number is expected to increase to between 500 and 600.

Exports

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage by which the volume of exports in the third and fourth quarters of 1952 fell below the figures for the corresponding quarters of 1951.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The volume of United Kingdom exports was, in the third quarter of 1952, 14 per cent. less and, in the fourth quarter, 7 per cent. less than in the corresponding quarters of 1951.

Mr. Wilson: In view of those very grave figures, would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he expects that this Government will be able to get the volume of exports back to what we achieved in 1951?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There is another factor which I am sure the right hon Gentleman would bear in mind, namely. that our deficits on visible trade were £373 million and £273 million respectively in the third and fourth quarters of 1951, and in the corresponding periods of 1952 they had dropped to £183 million and £134 million.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman really seek to correct these deficits simply by restricting imports and not by increasing exports?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman should not draw that deduction from my answer; but I think it is right that the full picture of our visible trade position should be borne in mind in this connection.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if imports and exports were both cut to nil the deficit would also fall to nil?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am also aware that if our visible trade position had continued to deteriorate at the same rate, we should be in a very unfortunate position today.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not obvious from Questions by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that they fail to realise that the sellers' market has ended and that manufacturers can make goods only against order and not on speculation?

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage of total United Kingdom exports which went to Commonwealth countries in the second half of 1951 and the second half of 1952, respectively.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Fifty-four per cent. and 48 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures also represent a most deplorable showing, and in view of the increase in Commonwealth exports ever since the war until last year will he say what are the prospects now of increased exports to the Commonwealth? Also, will he say whether he thinks that the action of Australian secondary goods manufacturers in digging themselves in behind the import barriers will permanently withhold the possibility of us increasing our Commonwealth exports?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question asked me simply for the percentage, which I have given. It is about the same as it was in the first half of 1951.

Industrial Estate, Longton

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will have the Longton, Stoke-on-Trent, industrial estate treated on the same basis as a Development Area.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The statutory benefits enjoyed by development areas only apply to areas scheduled under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and the situation in Stoke-on-Trent does not warrant scheduling the area under this Act.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will in future discourage the building of new factories on the sites of old potteries in the Stokeon-Trent area, and encourage the building of new factories for the manufacture of pottery and ceramics on the Longton industrial estate or between the estate and the new Wedgwood factory.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: An Industrial Development Certificate issued by the Board of Trade under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is normally valid anywhere within a specified local authority area. The Board does not exercise control over the precise location of the factory within that area. That is a matter for the local planning authority.

Mr. Smith: Does the Minister agree that, in this area, the finest pottery in the world is produced, beautifully decorated, and that, in view of the great contribution which this is making to the economy of the country, has not the time arrived when the whole environment and lay-out of that area should be made more consistent with the products which it produces?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I agree, at any rate, that this is the area in which the finest pottery in the world is produced.

Brigadier Peto: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the finest pottery is produced at Barnstaple?

Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both hon. Members are wrong, and that the finest pottery is produced at Poole?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My hon. and gallant Friends will recognise the difficulty in which they have placed me.

New Pottery Factories (Expenditure)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total expenditure on new pottery factories since 1945 to the latest date: and the amount spent on modernisation or extension of existing factories.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The total value of building licences granted on Board of Trade sponsorship in the years 1946–52 was £426,650 for new domestic pottery factories, and £3,540,173 for modernisation and extension of existing domestic pottery factories.

Mr. Smith: In view of this enormous expenditure, and of the very fine work which has been done by the more progressive managements, would not the Minister agree that the Board of Trade should adopt a policy of encouraging buildings that are more consistent with the modernisation of the industry?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Within the limits of the investment programme, we do what we can to assist those who can make a contribution to our export prospects.

Wool Cloths (Quality)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the extent to which the structural strength of wool cloths is debased by the inclusion of large percentages of remanufactured shoddy; and whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that the presence of shoddy shall be made notifiable to the public, in view of the increasing use of remanufactured fibres in the wool industry, to the detriment of the consumer.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Both recovered and virgin wools vary greatly in quality, and I cannot accept the implication in the Question that the inclusion of the former in wool cloth necessarily debases its structural strength.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the value of shoddy consumed in the United Kingdom in 1947 was £49 million, whereas in 1952 it went up to £80 million? Does he not consider that the consumer should be protected? Is it not true that in the United States a labelling scheme has been going on for 10 years, and would he not recommend it here?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Lady will realise that the term "shoddy" covers a very wide range of recovered wool and that even the Australians, who have a great interest in preserving the sales of raw wool, themselves have had to abandon as quite unworkable an attempt to distinguish between goods made of virgin wool and goods made of recovered wool.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Americans have managed to distinguish between them, and that the buying public are very well aware of what is shoddy wool?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would recommend the hon. Lady to get in touch with her hon. Friends from Yorkshire on the subject.

Mr. Rhodes: Is the Minister aware that if remanufactured wool was not processed, Batley, Dewsbury and Morley would be completely out of work?

Cutlery (Nickel)

Mr. Mulley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the import of substantial quantities of nickel from Japan without restriction, he will now relax the present prohibition of its use by cutlery manufacturers.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am afraid that owing to the needs of the re-armament programme we cannot yet relax the restrictions on the use of stainless nickel steel for cutlery. The use of nickel silver for cutlery is, of course, already permitted except for penknives. I am prepared to consider individual cases involving some special degree of hardship in relation to the use of nickel silver.

Mr. Mulley: While thanking the Minister for his promise to look into individual cases, may I ask him if he is aware that, in Sheffield, there are great quantities of nickel which cannot be used because the firms owning the nickel are prohibited from putting it into their manufactures, which constitutes a handicap to them in their export efforts, because they have to run two or three lines of penknife production? Is he aware that five lb. of pure nickel would make 30 gross of small shields for pocket knives, and will he not have another look at the matter to see whether, along with copper and zinc, nickel cannot be made freely available?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will keep this matter under examination, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that there are arrangements for controlling the end use of nickel which are arrived at in agreement with other Powers in O.E.E.C.

Mr. P. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the amount of

nickel for pocket knives, which we are discussing, is very small, and that I do not think it will upset the national interest if the Minister makes this concession?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My hon. Friend will realise that pocket knives are on the common list under control arrangements with the O.E.E.C. countries. Perhaps he will have a word with me later on the matter.

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the use of nickel is unrestricted as regards the spoon and fork trade, he will allow the use of nickel in the pocket knife trade for the home market.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am afraid that it is not yet possible to allow the unrestricted use of nickel silver for pocket knives. I am, however, prepared to consider individual cases involving some special degree of hardship.

Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have discussed the question of the export market, and that this refers to the home market? Cannot he find a definition which will make a distinction between O.E.E.C. exports and the home market, because, if he can do so, I can assure him that it will be very greatly welcomed in Sheffield?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The same difficuIty arises about controlling the end use of nickel silver, but I said that I would look into special cases brought to my notice. If my hon. Friend wishes to enter into the discussion of the general question with me, perhaps he will come to see me.

Mr. Roberts: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, but does he appreciate that special cases will not solve the problem of the home market as a whole?

G.A.T.T. (Japan)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any statement to make on the Government's policy in relation to the entry of Japan into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As my hon. Friend knows, our position was made clear at the meeting of the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement last


autumn. It was there decided, with our approval and that of the other Commonwealth Governments, with whom we have kept in close consultation, that detailed examination should be made of "the conditions and timing under which the Japanese application should be pursued." An Inter-Sessional Committee of the Contracting Parties is now meeting to consider this matter, and we must wait to see what conditions can be arranged to safeguard our industries and Commonwealth trade against a revival of disruptive competition.

Highland Development Area (Factories)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance was given under the Development of Industry Act to the firm that closed down in the Highland Development Area.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The firm, which has since re-opened in larger premises just outside the Development Area, did not seek any help under the Distribution of Industry Act.

Sir D. Robertson: As this matter is of such importance to the success of this great Development Area, can the Minister say whether his Department has made any effort at all to nurture this delicate plant and help it over the stile?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If I may follow my hon. Friend into his mixed metaphors, I hope that he will not ask for help for this particular plant over this particular stile. In fact, the firm, which is situated just outside the Development Area, is making, in this case, a contribution to employment in the Highlands.

Sir D. Robertson: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many of his Department's officials are directly concerned with the establishment of factories in the Development Areas and what is his policy with regard to the encouragement of applications.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No officials are engaged exclusively on work relating to the establishment of factories in Development Areas; but 71 officials at headquarters, about 60 in regional offices whose regions include Development Areas, and a number in other regions are engaged on the administration of distribution of industry policy, which includes such work.
As regards the second part of the Question, I shall continue to use all suitable opportunities to encourage industrialists to establish factories in Development Areas.

Sir D. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that any encouragement has been given by the Department to this problem? Is it not a fact that his officials are simply waiting for people to apply, and that they do not go out and try to induce firms to come into the Development Area?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I can tell my hon. Friend, who, I know, feels deeply about this and has done a great deal himself in this matter. that we do our best, by all the means open to us, to encourage industrialists to come to these areas; but, if my hon. Friend has any specific cases to which he would like to call my attention, I should be very happy to hear about them.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of Government Departments are not giving any priority to firms in Development Areas? I refer specifically to the Ministry of Food. When one approaches them, they say that they have a national project, whether it is the rationing of sweets or the allocation of sugar, and will not give any particular priority to any firm in a Development Area. Will the Minister look into that, and see that they do give priority?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down to the Minister concerned.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment is now developing in some parts of the Highlands at an alarming rate, and would he consider the fact that, in spite of all the inducements of Government Departments, no great number of firms have applied to start businesses in the Highlands? Would not the Government consider the proposal, made some time ago, that they should try to get some Government Departments which are opening up concerns to take them into the Highlands; and, failing this, that the Government should collaborate with the county councils, in getting industries started there, by granting authorisations?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am willing to consider any suggestion put forward either on


behalf of a Government Department, a local authority or a private business, which will bring employment into this area, and if the right hon. Gentleman has any specific cases in mind I am quite sure that we shall be very happy to consider them.

Sir D. Robertson: asked the President of the Board of Trade where the three new industries are located in the 36 Highland parishes scheduled as a Development Area; the total number of people employed in them; and who built the three factories.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Two of the firms are at Inverness and one is at Alcaig. While I regret that I could not properly give figures of the numbers employed, since all three firms are small concerns and such figures would in effect disclose information about the individual firms, I can say that the number of people employed is very small. In each case the premises were built or adapted by the company concerned.

Aircraft Spares and Materials (Imports)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of aircraft spares and aviation materials imported during 1952; and how this figure was made up in detail.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Imports of aircraft parts during 1952, excluding those imported under the Mutual Defence Assistance agreement with the United States, were valued at £10,932,000. The trade statistics do not record these parts in detail. I regret that no information is available about imports of aviation materials as such.

Air Commodore Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend say how much of that £10 million-odd was spent in dollars, and can he also give the relevant figure for exports of British equipment to the United States? Will he bear in mind that the bulk of the £10 million was used by B.O.A.C., and does not he think it an extraordinary thing that one industry should consume that amount of dollars? Will he do everything possible to see that these figures are reduced at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot give the break-down between dollar and other

imports without notice. Regarding the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, my information is that a large part of the total imports of aircraft parts was imported by foreign airlines, which was not a charge on us, and that much of the rest was for specialised parts not available in this country for use in the manufacture of aircraft for export. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any other information. perhaps he will see me on it.

Air Commodore Harvey: Yes, I will.

Coronation Souvenirs (Exports)

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking to encourage exports of Coronation souvenirs, particularly to hard currency areas.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The services of my Department are available to all exporters who are trying to develop sales of Coronation souvenirs in overseas markets. Inquiries from importers abroad for Coronation souvenirs have been circulated among interested exporters in this country. Her Majesty's commercial representatives in foreign countries and United Kingdom Trade Commissioners in the Commonwealth have been kept informed of the names of firms producing souvenirs which have been approved by the Coronation Souvenirs Committee of the Council of Industrial Design, so that they may answer inquiries on the spot. In the hard currency countries, in particular, buyers have been advised where they may obtain their requirements in this country.

Companies (Liquidation)

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade for each of the years from 1945, the total number of companies that have gone into voluntary or compulsory liquidation.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Do not the figures show that there were more bankruptcies last year than at any time since 1945, and are we to understand, therefore, that the only freedom which this Government have given to the people is the freedom to go bankrupt?

Mr. Thomeycroft: The figures do not really show that. They show that the number of compulsory liquidations last year were rather fewer than in 1950. I do not think that the deductions which are sought to be drawn from the number of bankruptcies are either very sound or, for the hon. Gentleman, very safe, because the record under the previous Government—if this basis of argument is used, which I think is false anyway—would be shown to be worse.

Brigadier Medlicott: Do the figures include the voluntary liquidation of the Labour Government in 1951?

Mr. Lewis: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his answer to my supplementary with the figures he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) in his answer to Question No. 1?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question asked by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) related to bankruptcies, whereas these are voluntary liquidations of companies.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that while the ultimate sanction of a private enterprise economy is the bankruptcy court, the ultimate sanction of Socialist collective economy is the hangman?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That goes a little wide of the Question.
Following is the information:


Year
Voluntary Liquidations
Compulsory Liquidations


1945
1,063
57


1946
1,751
78


1947
2,330
161


1948
2,470
343


1949
2,696
413


1950
2,613
464


1951
2,348
407


1952
2,669
436

Whisky (Exports to U.S.A.)

Sir L. Ropner: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of whisky exported to the United States of America in 1952.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The value of our exports of whisky to the United States in 1952 was £18,481,000

Sir L. Ropner: Can my right hon. Friend say, without notice, what number of gallons that represents?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes. 6,301,000 proof gallons.

Mr, Follick: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the amount of whisky exported to other dollar paying countries?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question related only to exports to the United States. If the hon. Gentleman wants information about exports to other countries, perhaps he will put down a Question.

Oil Industry (Monopolies Commission)

Mr. Beswick: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any further statement to make regarding a reference of the oil industry to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Mr. Beswick: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet completed his consideration, or that he has decided not to refer the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The answer which was given before on this was that the question of this reference would be borne in mind in considering future matters for reference.

Mr. Beswick: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this industry has now extended its monopolistic position from the oilfields to the filling pumps, and that, important as are some of the other matters referred to the Commission, they are chicken feed compared with this gigantic oil monopoly? Will not he therefore reconsider the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Without prejudging the issue at all, I would point out that I have been questioned in some cases about the excessive competition of the petrol companies and the amount of individual advertising that is going on. That was the accusation made last week.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the report of the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral about the similarity in the prices charged for petrol used by the Forces?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That would come up for consideration if the matter were referred.

German Goods

Mr. Mulley: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he refuses to grant import licences for semi-manufactured goods from Western Germany which cannot be produced in this country but which can be processed here for export and home use, thus earning and saving foreign currency, while he permits imports without restriction from Western Germany of fully manufactured goods which can be produced in this country and whose manufacture here would avert unemployment.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I understand that the semi-manufactured goods which the hon. Member has in mind are agatine rings for fishing rods and that the manufactured goods are cutlery. Agatine rings from Western Germany are admissible under the quota for sports goods and parts. Cutlery from Western Germany is admissible under a similar quota for cutlery. Import licences under both of these quotas are issued to importers on the basis of their past trade.
I am re-examining the licence application for fishing rod rings, which the hon. Member has mentioned to me, in the light of the possibilities of re-export, and I shall write to him about it as soon as I can.

Mr. Mulley: May I point out to the Minister that though I am grateful to him for looking at this individual case, it is only one example of many brought to my notice of instances where his Department will not issue licences unless the importer has imported that commodity in the past? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a manufacturer wants to import some material for experimental purposes in order to try and develop a trade which does not already exist, he gets a blank refusal and no co-operation from the Board of Trade? Will not the right hon. Gentleman insist that his officers carry out the precepts which he so ably lays down in his public utterances on the subject?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Import licences, of course, are generally issued on the basis of past trade, which is the main basis on which one would have to issue them. At the same time, the Board of Trade have

always been prepared to look favourably at any suggestions which might assist exports, and I am perfectly willing to look at the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. P. Roberts: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that it will give great satisfaction if lie will look at this matter: and, further, that these controls were put on by a Socialist Government in the past and that nothing was done at that time to remedy the position?

Australian Import Embargo (Lancashire Textile Trade)

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the partial slackening of the Australian import embargo: and the estimated value to the Lancashire textile industry during the present year of these measures.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have seen Press reports about forthcoming relaxations in the Australian import restrictions, but I know of no announcement by the Commonwealth Government to that effect. The second part of the Ouestion. accordingly, does not arise.

Mr. Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that Lancashire was one of the chief victims of the Australian restrictions? While I appreciate the need for being tolerant and showing great patience with our Australian friends, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what action he is taking to unfreeze the vast amount of merchandise now stored in warehouses and awaiting shipment to Australia?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member will remember that this question was dealt with fairly specifically in the communique after the Commonwealth Conference arid also in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debate on that subject. In view of that, and of Press reports of a forthcoming announcement by the Australian Government, I do not think that I can really add anything to my answer.

Textile Prices

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate average fall in the price of textiles since price controls were abolished.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No single price index for textiles as a whole is available but there has been a steady fall in prices since the summer of 1951. Latest available figures for clothing show that retail prices have fallen by about 4½ per cent. since the price control of Utility textiles was ended in March, 1952. Manufacturers' prices of clothing have fallen by about 9 per cent. since that date.

Mr. Osborne: Since the consumer has been obtaining better value at cheaper prices since these controls were removed. would not my right hon. Friend look at other controls in the interest of the consumer to find out whether more cannot be taken off?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is our policy to remove any control which we do not think necessary and in this field we have removed a number of controls with beneficial effect.

Mr. Edelman: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has been a fall in the total volume of wages because of unemployment since price controls were removed?

Mr. Thomeycroft: This Question refers to the effect of the removal of price control on the consumer.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman contribute this fall in prices to decontrol or to the seller's market, to which he referred just now, and the lower prices for raw materials?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the fall in prices is due to a very large number of factors, but to have attempted to retain price control on a falling market would have been a very stupid policy to pursue.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that gross production in the cotton textile industry now stands at about 17 or 18 per cent. less than it was in October, 1951? Is he aware that that is the material figure by which the success of his policy should be judged?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am fully aware of, and have not sought to disguise, the many difficulties which confront the textile industry, but this Question referred to whether consumers were now paying less for their purchases than they did before. They are paying less.

Mr. D. Brook: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the price of wool has been decontrolled the price of crossbred wool has risen from 60d. to 200d. per lb. and is now back at 60d.? Is not that really the reason why this variation in price has taken place?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There has been a steady fall in the prices of the general range of textiles since price controls were removed. As has been pointed out, many factors were involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONATION (BANK HOLIDAY)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as a lead to other public and to private employers, he will arrange for all Government employees to receive one day's holiday with full pay on Coronation Day, 1953, in addition to normal holidays.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The Government intend to recommend to Her Majesty that Coronation Day, Tuesday, 2nd June, 1953, should be proclaimed a Bank Holiday and a public holiday throughout the United Kingdom. When the Proclamation has been made, all Government Departments will be instructed to observe Coronation Day as an additional paid holiday for Government employees. Those who are required by their Departments to attend for duty that day will receive the treatment normal in such cases.

Mr. Chapman: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply and, in order to try to bring about national co-ordination, ask whether Government Departments will be closing either on the day prior to or the day following Coronation Day as well as on Coronation Day itself or only on Coronation Day?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that my statement was fairly comprehensive. If the hon. Member would like me to add to it perhaps he will put a further Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Robens: Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to have discussions with the National Joint Council so as to make


certain that there is no public holiday for any worker which is an enforced holiday without payment being made?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will see that my right hon. Friend hears of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Cricket (Entertainments Duty)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in accordance with his pledge of 6th May, 1952, he has now reviewed the probable effect of higher Entertainments Duty on cricket during the coming season; and whether he can now announce that the higher duty will not be imposed for the 1953 season.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) on 29th January.

Mr. Chapman: Why is the hon. Gentleman so unhelpful? Is he not aware that Warwickshire, whose case is typical of other counties, suffered a fall of gate receipts from £20,000 to £12,000 even on the reduced rate of tax? Since the Chancellor has adjusted subsidies and Purchase Tax between Budgets why cannot he make a simple administrative decision in this case before the Budget?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Those are just the kind of factors which, as it was pointed out in my answer, will be considered.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a Question similar to Question No. 31. which has just been answered was submitted by me to the Table this week and was refused on the ground that it had been answered previously?

Mr. Speaker: I shall have to look at the Questions. They may have looked similar, but there may have been some distinction.

Duty-Free Machinery Imports (Revenue)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been raised by the abolition, last

year, of the duty-free import of machinery not procurable in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: An exact estimate is not possible, but I can say that the amount is very small.

Mr. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend not consider allowing this machinery to come in free of duty where the products are largely for the export trade, because by taxing machinery as it comes in his right hon. Friend is putting up the cost of our exports?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Post-war Credits (Interest)

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the annual cost of paying interest to holders of post-war credits at the rate of interest paid on Post Office savings.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The gross cost to the Exchequer of paying interest at 2½ per cent. on the total amount of postwar credits outstanding would be about £14,500,000 in 1953–54 and would diminish thereafter by about £400,000 per annum while post-war credits continue to be repaid at the current rate.

Mr. Bence: In view of that figure of an annual cost of £14,500,000, which is a relatively small figure. and in face of the fact that in last year's Budget the Chancellor increased interest payments to the big moneylending firms to the tune of £100 million, in the next Budget would he not spend £14,500,000 for the benefit of people whose money he has kept for 10 years?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While I shall not be tempted into anticipation of any Budget statement, I must point out that the sum of £14,500,000 as an additional Exchequer charge is not wholly negligible.

Imported Gifts (Tax)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction in the North-East of Scotland caused by the imposition of Purchase Tax and import


tax on gift parcels sent from overseas to persons in North-East Scotland; if he will define clearly the authority for and principle on which such impositions are made; and if he will take steps to discriminate between such gift parcels and ordinary purchases from abroad.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The law makes no distinction between imported gifts and other imported goods. The hon. and learned Member is, however, probably aware of the general concession relating to gift food parcels and to the concession covering small value gifts sent home by members of the Forces serving abroad. It would not be practicable to exempt gift parcels generally, since these cannot be easily distinguished from other parcels.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that that answer is ambiguous and not understandable? Will he not realise that gifts are not purchases, and distinguish between gifts and purchases and not charge Purchase Tax on things which are not purchases?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that when the hon. and learned Member reads my answer in HANSARD he will have remarkably little difficulty in construing it. The practical difficulty, of course, is that it is not possible at the ports to say whether a particular parcel is a gift or has been ordered from abroad.

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exempt from Customs duty and Purchase Tax gift parcels up to a value of £3 or thereabouts sent from the United States of America and Canada by American and Canadian brides to their parents and relatives in this country.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. It would be neither equitable nor practicable to discriminate in favour of a particular class of gift on the basis of the special relationship between donor and recipient. Nor would it be fair to single out gifts from the North American continent for specially favourable treatment.

Mr. Janner: Would the Minister say why he considers it impracticable and unreasonable? Does he not think that elderly parents and people of that kind should have the right to receive gift parcels from their relatives? Is he not aware that in Canada and America there are concessions of this nature? How

does he expect pensioners to be able to pay duty on these parcels? How does he know on which parcels Customs duties are being paid? Does he not think that it is better to have a clear-cut issue on this matter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The object of the present ruling is to have a clear-cut issue. In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, certain parcels can be received tax free, they being the ones which I have already described in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes).

Married Couples' Earnings (Income Tax)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his next Financial Statement, he will show the Income Tax position of a man and wife both earning, and comparable tables for a man and wife both earning, with children.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The total tax payable by a married couple, both of whom are earning, may vary according to the proportion each contributes to the joint income, and the tables suggested would, therefore, have to show, for each figure of joint income, a number of different figures of tax depending on the share earned by each spouse. Such tables would be too cumbersome for inclusion in the Financial Statement.

Miss Ward: As a large number of married women get a personal allowance which is denied to other married women, would it not be fair to let the country know about this valuable concession? Does not my hon. Friend's answer mean that it would not be convenient to let the country know the value of these concessions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It does not seem to me that there is any difficulty in the people concerned ascertaining the precise degree of the concession to which they are entitled. What my hon. Friend asked me was whether these figures could be given in the financial statement, and the answer is that as they vary in almost every case in accordance with the proportion earned by the husband or by the wife, it would he not feasible to produce something which looked rather like the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Import Restrictions (Removal)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that if imports are restricted exports are correspondingly restricted, he will now remove restrictions on imports.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): There is, no doubt, a connection between restrictions on imports and restrictions on exports. While it is our objective to work steadily towards removing import restrictions, we cannot at this stage afford any significant relaxation in imports.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my hon. Friend tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he breaks the law of supply and demand, that law will break him and the people of Britain?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly convey my hon. Friend's warning to my right hon. Friend.

Government Expenditure

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his undertaking to do everything possible to maintain and improve the capacity of British industry, he will, in order to revive initiative, consider, when framing his Budget proposals, the reduction of Government expenditure, which will enable him to reduce Income Tax by 2s. in the £

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. I cannot, of course, anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my hon. Friend aware that penal taxation and the comprehensive Welfare State are killing initiative and ruining character? Is he also aware that the comprehensive Welfare State, instead of proving to be a lifebuoy, is proving to be a millstone round the neck of the country?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Those are large issues which cannot be profitably discussed by way of question and answer

Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government's recent cuts in the grant for adult education is a good example of the policy of indiscriminate economy?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that that arises out of this Question.

Inflation

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to implement the declared policy of curbing inflation, especially with regard to Government expenditure, and the continued demand for increased wages and salaries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement on these and other matters very soon after Easter.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the progressive decline in the purchasing power of the £, as reported last Friday, is due to the fact that six years of Socialist Government ruined our credit, and that unless he acts quickly and courageously wages and so-called benefits will be paid in pieces of paper which cannot be eaten or worn and the purchasing power of which is declining?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have to answer Questions on a good many matters in this House, but I do not think that six years of Socialist Government is one of them.

Cutlery and Hollow-ware (Tax)

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of the fact that hammers, screwdrivers and similar tools are free of tax, he will also relieve scissors under 8 inches and bent shank scissors and tailors' scissors, irrespective of size
(2) whether, in view of the fact that there is no Purchase Tax on cups, saucers, plates and dishes, he will release the cutlery trade from Purchase Tax on knives, forks and spoons.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestions, but he will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the feeling of injustice in the cutlery trade in Sheffield because of these anomalies? Does he not realise that the removal of these anomalies will help production in the cutlery trade? If he will convey those remarks to his right hon. Friend we in Sheffield will be obliged

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will gladly convey to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Mulley: While we appreciate that the Financial Secretary cannot anticipate the Budget statement, may I ask if he would receive a deputation from the manufacturers of Sheffield to state the case, so that he can have all the information available before the Budget statement is framed? Would he ask his right hon. Friend to consider that request?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend and I receive a substantial number of deputations, and if an application is made in the normal way we shall do our best to fit it in.

Mr. Mulley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of unemployment in the cutlery and silverware industries, the harmful effect on design and production and consequential hindrance to exports and its uneven incidence and many anomalies, particulars of which have been sent to him, he will immediately reduce the Purchase Tax on cutlery, spoons and forks, and table hollow-ware.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir, but my right hon. Friend will bear these considerations in mind when he is preparing his Budget proposals.

Flood Disaster Gifts (Tax Relief)

Mr. Follick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allow all bona fide gifts by wholesale and retail traders, in answer to the Flood Appeal, and other contributions, to be regarded as a legitimate expense from an Income Tax point of view.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) on 10th February.

Mr. Follick: Does the Minister not think that it is disgraceful to tax the charitable contributions of benevolent people who wish to help the flood victims in their distress?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Gentleman has misapprehended the position. Nobody taxes the relief given to the flood victims. All that this ruling

means is that people will not be able to contribute to the flood victims and then largely reimburse themselves at the cost of the Exchequer.

Savings Bank Deposits (Interest Rate)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will permit an increase in the rate of interest paid on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my hon. Friend realise that the rate of interest is very small on these deposits, and has remained the same for nearly 100 years? Would he not ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into the matter again as there would be an encouragement in small savings if this rate of interest could be raised to the sort of rate of interest that is expected in other quarters?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I doubt very much whether the total of small savings would be increased as a result of this sort of change. I think it is much more likely that there would be a switch into this sort of saving from some other sort. In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the fact that this has been so for 100 years seems to be no reason for abolishing it now.

Mr. Lewis: As the Chancellor has on several occasions increased the Bank rate, can the hon. Gentleman explain why he cannot do the same for the small savers? Is it just the big bankers that the Government want to help?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps appreciate that these are two quite distinct matters, and that the proper concern of my right hon. Friend is to secure that these matters are arranged fairly both to the taxpayer and the saver.

Crown Pieces

Mr. Slater: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his intentions with regard to extending the time allowed for applications for Coronation crown pieces.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I told the House on 27th January, orders in respect of 2,750,000 crown pieces had been placed by 31st December. My right hon. Friend has now authorised the Royal


Mint to strike up to four million crown pieces in all. Additional orders within this overall limit will be accepted through the banks, with whom they should be placed as soon as possible. Every effort will be made to supply the 2,750,000 already ordered before the Coronation, but, although the Royal Mint will do its best, I cannot guarantee this for later orders.

Mr. Slater: Does that mean that at the moment the Chancellor is extending the time limit, but is not giving us the date to which it has been extended? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my own constituency, by voluntary effort, 72 children were to be catered for in one street alone? People are protesting that because of the inadequacy of the time limit relating to applications they were not given an opportunity to place their orders.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Gentleman will be reassured when he studies the terms of my answer. I can summarise the information he has asked for. The position is that applications may now be made for the balance of 1,250,000 over the 2,750,000 already ordered. Those applications should be made as soon as possible because there must be a limit to the total and, other things being equal, first come first served.

Mr. Mitchison: Of what metal will these coins consist, silver or cupro-nickel, or what?

Mr. Gaitskell: While welcoming the Financial Secretary's statement, may I ask him how much profit the Treasury will make out of this issue?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put down a question on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister whether, following his visit to the United States of America, he will now endeavour to arrange a meeting with Marshal Stalin in an effort to lessen the tension in international affairs.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member

for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on Monday, 9th February.

Mr. Dodds: But that is not good enough. Does the Prime Minister recall the banner headlines of the "Evening Standard" which read:
Talks with Stalin call transforms the Election"?
Has the right hon. Gentleman no desire to keep faith with the millions of people who believe in his sincerity? Does he not by now appreciate that if he is to have any restraining influence on the present American Administration, he will have to have a more independent mind and have a talk with Stalin?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Morrison: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will tell us the business which the Government propose to submit to the House next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 16TH FEBRUARY—Third Reading:
Transport Bill
TUESDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY—Committee stage:
Iron and Steel Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 18TH FEBRUARY—Committee stage:
Iron and Steel Bill.
Motion to approve the Draft Jewellery and Silverware Council (Dissolution) Order.
THURSDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY—Supply [4th allotted Day] Committee stage:
Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which contains token provision in connection with Flood Emergency Services and other Estimates.
FRIDAY, 20TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Morrison: I notice that on Thursday the debate takes place on the Vote of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government; but I presume the Home Secretary will be available in his capacity as Chairman of the Cabinet Co-ordinating Committee, in which capacity we welcome him, because he is the first publicly-announced overlord who is not a Member of the other place.
The other point I should like to raise is that, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there is substantial feeling in the House on the question of the supply of jet aircraft to the Egyptian Government. Could we not reach an agreement whereby, on Tuesday, half a day could be made available for the discussion of this subject, which is a matter of some urgency in view of the announcement which was recently made?

Mr. Crookshank: My right hon. Friend will be available, but I cannot say how wide the scope of the debate may be. The token debate is on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
With regard to jet aircraft, I note that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) is to raise this subject on the Adjournment on Tuesday. That is perhaps why the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should allot half a day to the discussion of that subject on Tuesday. Without committing myself as to when it might be possible to arrange half a day, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow conversations to take place through the usual channel with a view to fitting it in next week.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: With regard to Thursday's business, I understand that the token Vote is only for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. That will preclude the raising of any Scottish issue. Would it not be possible to put down a Vote which would enable Scottish questions to be brought into the discussion?

Mr. Crookshank: My right hon. and gallant Friend is quite right. It is an English Vote which we are discussing on Thursday. I am not certain whether there is a Scottish Supplementary Estimate in this list. Perhaps that question could be looked into.

Mr. Morrison: I should think it might be possible to put the matter right. I

agree that Scotland ought not to be excluded; nor should the other Departments of the English Administration. I suggest that we can easily arrange for that difficulty to be overcome. If we took the Vote in such a form that we could move on to the Adjournment we could have a wide discussion, as suggested by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot).
I was aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) was raising this question of jet aircraft on the Adjournment on Tuesday, but I am sure he would be happier if we could allot half a day to it. I would press the point that the supply of jet aircraft to the Government of Egypt and to other Middle East countries is a matter of urgency. While I do not wish to insist that this debate should be on Tuesday I would press the right hon. Gentleman to agree that it should take place some time next week.

Mr. Crookshank: I quite appreciate the point and I am sure there will not be any difficulty between us. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a mistake if no reference could be made to Scotland in Thursday's debate; but we need not discuss the details. It is quite possible to take Votes formally and then have another form of debate.

Mr. Woodburn: On Monday's business, has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Minister of Transport? He has accumulated large arrears of explanations which he has to make about the Government's policy on transport. Is the Leader of the House satisfied that one day will be enough for this?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir; quite enough.

Mr. P. Morris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Rule is to be suspended on Monday?

Mr. Crookshank: I do not see any reason why it should be.

Mr. Hale: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will find time to discuss the Motion standing in my name and the names of 90 other hon. Members on the question of unemployment in Lancashire? Can he also say whether he will find time to discuss the Motion of censure on the Minister of Transport, in connection with a Private Bill, in the names of 15 of his


supporters, and which, therefore, would appear to be a subject for early discussion?

Mr. Crookshank: As regards the hon. Gentleman's first point, I do not see any time being available next week; but if he would like to see whether it can be raised at some other time, by consulting the acting Leader of the Opposition, that would be the way to deal with the matter. As for the other point, I really do not know to what the hon. Member refers. There is no Motion for censure on the Minister of Transport anywhere on the Order Paper, so far as I can see. As for Private Bill business, that is not within my control.

Mr. Edward Evans: Following the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), may I ask whether the responsibility of the Minister of Health in respect of contingencies relating to the flood disaster can be discussed next Thursday?

Mr. Crookshank: That is what I intended. But we really cannot go into all these details now. It will be better if the hon. Gentleman will kindly leave it to his right hon. Friend and myself to discuss the matter through the usual channels to see how we can get the most useful and profitable debate on this subject.

Mr. Pannell: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that if we are to have a whole string of Government Departments represented in Thursday's debate, by the time all the Ministers and all the other right hon. Gentlemen who want to speak have spoken there will be no time available for back benchers? Does he not consider that this matter—which is urgent and important, and affects many people at the moment merits a debate of a day rather than half a day?

Mr. Crookshank: I did not mention half a day. I said that I hoped that we could have a useful and profitable debate. I am sure we can manage that. Perhaps all the speeches need not be so long.

SUDAN (ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like now to make a statement on our negotiations with the Egyptian Government concerning the Sudan, in continuation of the statement which I made on 20th January last. I am glad to be able to report that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Cairo has now signed an agreement between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Egyptian Government concerning the introduction of self-government for the Sudanese, to be followed by self-determination.
I shall not now go into the long history of our discussions with Egypt on this question, except to recall that in October, 1951, the then Government of Egypt announced that it had unilaterally abrogated the Condominium Agreement of 1899. That Government, and successive Egyptian Governments, insisted upon recognition by us of the Egyptian claim to the unity of Egypt and the Sudan and also of the claim that the King of Egypt was also King of the Sudan. They insisted upon this as a pre-condition of any discussions regarding the future of the Sudan. We declined to accept this unilateral abrogation and that goes for the late Government as well as the present Government—and we consistently refused to agree to any change in the status of the Sudan without consultation with the Sudanese.
Last autumn, however, General Neguib's Government took the decisive step of recognising that the Sudanese should have self-determination and that sovereignty should be reserved for the Sudanese until that time. I should like the House to realise the significance of this step. It completely changed the situation. Whereas hitherto we had been unable to find any basis for negotitions, from that moment there was good reason to hope that we could reach agreement.
The present agreement expressly recognises the right of the Sudanese people to self-determination and the


effective exercise thereof at the appropriate time and with the necessary safe-guards. It also provides that, in order to enable them to exercise self-determination in a free and neutral atmosphere, there shall be a transitional period not exceeding three years which shall provide full self-government for the Sudanese and which shall begin after the Sudanese Parliament has been elected.
As a consequence of this, early elections will be held for the Sudanese Parliament. It is the intention that preparations for these shall be put in hand at once. All this, of course, is in full accord with the policy which successive Governments in this country have pursued in respect of the Sudan and with the statement which I made to this House on 15th November, 1951.
The agreement further provides that during the transitional period the sovereignty of the Sudan shall be kept in reserve for the Sudanese until self-determination is achieved. These notable developments have been warmly welcomed by the Sudanese themselves.
Our recent discussions with the Egyptian Government have dealt with the practical arrangements to give effect to these intentions. The Egyptian Government have accepted, subject to certain amendments, a draft Statute for the introduction of self-government in the Sudan. This Statute had been produced by the present Sudan Government as a result of the work of a Constitutional Commission consisting of 13 Sudanese under a British Chairman. It had been subsequently accepted by the Sudanese Legislative Assembly. It contained an article giving the Governor-General a special responsibility in respect of the Southern Provinces of the Sudan.
This article has now been amended, by agreement, to confer upon the GovernorGeneral a special responsibility to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all the inhabitants of the difference Provinces of the Sudan. This wording of course includes the Southern Provinces. Moreover, the Constitution to which the Egyptian Government have agreed provides for about a quarter of the seats in each of the Houses of the new Parliament to go to Southern representatives and for not less than two Southern Ministers in the new Cabinet.
The Governor-General will be the supreme constitutional authority in the Sudan. In regard to external affairs, he will be directly responsible to the two Governments. In the exercise of his responsibility to ensure fair and equitable treatment for the public service, be will have sole discretion, and in the exercise of certain other discretionary powers he will act with the prior approval of a Commission to be called the Governor-General's Commission.
It will consist of a Pakistani member who shall act as Chairman, two Sudanese proposed by the British and Egyptian Governments in agreement and subsequently approved by the Sudanese Parliament, which shall be entitled to nominate alternative candidates in case of disapproval, one British and one Egyptian member. The Governor-General's special responsibility to ensure equitable treatment for all the different Provinces of the Sudan will be exercised with the approval of his Commission.
It has also been agreed that an Electoral Commission shall supervise the preparation and conduct of the elections, which. as I have said, it is intended shall be held very soon. This Commission will consist of seven members, namely, three Sudanese appointed by the Governor-General with the approval of his Commission, one British, one Egyptian, one United States, and one Indian who shall be Chairman.
As the House is aware, it has been the policy of successive British Governments that the public services in the Sudan should be gradually Sudanised. It has therefore been agreed to establish a Sudanisation Committee, consisting of one British and one Egyptian nominated by their respective Governments and appointed by the Governor-General, together with three Sudanese members selected by the Governor-General from a list of five submitted to him by the Prime Minister of the Sudan. The duty of this Committee will be to complete the Sudanisation of the Administration, the police, the Sudan Defence Force and any other Government posts which might affect the free choice of the Sudanese at the time of self-determination. It will report to the Sudanese Cabinet.
If the Governor-General does not agree with its decisions or with the views of the Sudanese Cabinet, he may, with the


approval of his Commission, withhold his assent, and in the event of disagreement between the Governor-General and the Commission, the matter is to be referred to the British and Egyptian Governments. The Sudanisation Committee is to complete its duties within a period not exceeding three years.
At the same time, the detailed preparations for the process of self-determination, including safeguards for ensuring the impartiality of the elections, and any other arrangements designed to secure a free and neutral atmosphere, are to be subject to international supervision. This supervision will extend to the process of Sudanisation, and we and the Egyptian Government have agreed to accept the recommendations of an international body established for this purpose.
The transitional period of self-government is to be brought to an end when the Sudanese Parliament pass a resolution expressing their desire that arrangements for self-determination shall be put in motion. When the British and Egyptian Governments have been formally notified of this resolution, the Sudanese Government will draw up a draft Law for the election of a Constituent Assembly.
I cannot let this occasion pass without expressing the admiration which I, personally, feel and which, I am sure, the House will share with me, for the Sudan Civil Service. Over the past 50 years, the members of the Sudan Civil Service have built for themselves a reputation for devotion to duty which has few equals in the world.
We think of them particularly at this time. Whether or not the transfer of power in the Sudan proceeds in an orderly and smooth manner depends, to a very large extent, on their courage and patience. I feel sure that we can count upon them to see this transfer completed in conformity with their traditions. Her Majesty's Government will certainly not forget what they have done, and will keep their interests in mind.
I do not think the House will wish me at this stage to go into any further detail regarding the complex arrangements which have necessarily had to be worked out in our discussions with the Egyptian Government. The text of the actual agreement is now available in the Vote Office. I also propose to lay before the

House as soon as possible a White Paper covering these discussions and containing the texts of all the relevant documents. Meanwhile, I have thought it right to put before the House the main provisions of the agreement which has been reached.
I must emphasise, however, that this is not an ordinary instance of a dependent territory proceeding towards self-government. There are many complications arising from the peculiar status of the Sudan as a condominium. I hope the House will agree with Her Majesty's Government that both the practical arrangements, and the recognition of the right of the Sudanese to order their own future development, constitute a reasonable settlement of this question which has for long bedevilled our relations with Egypt and contributed so much uncertainty to the future of the Sudan itself. I hope indeed that the outcome of these negotiations may prove to be a happy augury for the future well-being of the Sudanese. I hope too that it may have its beneficial influence on Anglo-Egyptian relations.
For our part, we shall give full consideration to any views which the Sudanese Parliament, when it is elected, may express upon this agreement. I repeat that it has been, and remains, the resolve of Her Majesty's Government that the Sudanese shall freely decide their own future. It is in that spirit that successive Governments have worked for many years, and it is in that spirit that we shall operate this agreement. I am sure that the good wishes of the whole House will go out to the people of the Sudan as they set forth on this further stage in the development of their national life.

Mr. H. Morrison: This statement of the Foreign Secretary is a very important one. It is one of some length and, as he will agree, of some complexity, and therefore nobody will expect me to utter detailed comments at this moment.
I would only say that it does appear to be in spirit and in principle a development of a policy for which the former Labour Government were responsible, and if it leads to a settlement of our relations, not only with the Sudan, which are important, but with Egypt as well, nobody will be happier than we shall on this side of the House.
I join with the Foreign Secretary, if I may, in paying my tribute to the British civil servants who have served in the Sudan, who have not only served their own country well but, what is of no less importance, served the Sudanese people with very great ability and conscientious faith.
We may well wish to have a debate upon the agreement at an early date, which no doubt can be arranged, if we so desire, through the usual channels.
I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could say if the agreement, as far as he can tell, carries the assent of the representatives and leaders of the Sudanese political parties, and whether the southern Sudanese are sufficiently safeguarded, in his judgment, by the agreement—a matter to which we attach importance—and whether he thinks this may lead, as I hope it will, to a settlement of the defence problem in Egypt, where I did propose, on behalf of the late Government, a four-Power arrangement, in which joint arrangement the Egyptian Government would take a full, dignified and proper part. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks the new agreement will be helpful.
I am sure we join with him in hoping that this may go smoothly with the people of the Sudan. and that it may be acceptable also not only to the Government of Egypt but to the people of Egypt as well.

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall try to answer his questions. First, about the political parties in the Sudan. He will be aware, of course, of the agreements reached between their representatives and the Egyptian Government's representatives some time ago. I do not want—it would be unwise at this stage, I think—to enter into invidious comparisons in detail, but I would say, I think without hesitation, that this present agreement I imagine; I am pretty confident will appeal more, if anything, to the Sudanese leaders than the one which was proposed before. Therefore, I have no reason to suppose that they will disagree. On the contrary, I feel confident that they will welcome the agreement.
As regards the second question, the constitutional arrangement, as I explained

in my statement, I think the important factor is that the Egyptian Government have accepted the draft constitution as it was prepared, as I explained, by the 13 Sudanese representatives last year, and that draft constitution, which gives the Southern Sudanese at least two Cabinet representatives and a quarter of the House, was approved by the Southern Sudanese at the time, and that is accepted in the present agreement. There remains the interim problem until that comes into force, but it is a problem which will be far less serious if we can have an early election. One of the reasons I like this agreement is that we can proceed with an early election, and then the Sudan Parliament can talk for the Sudanese people, which is what we want.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's final point, he knows, I think, that my right hon. Friend and I approved the fourPower proposal. Naturally, if something on that basis can be reached we shall welcome it, but I do not want to be a prophet, for I know how difficult in this matter these negotiations can be.

Mr. C. Davies: I am sure everyone in the House, wherever he may be, will welcome the fact that the Sudanese now will have the opportunity of forming their own Government and guiding their own destinies. Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that our real anxiety at the present moment is whether the interests of the Southern Sudanese are sufficiently protected and safeguarded, at any rate for the near future as well as the present?

Mr. Eden: As I say, when the Parliament comes into being they will be protected by representation. It will come into being in two or three months, I hope. They will be protected by representation, which is one thing they agreed to in the discussions last year.

Mr. Assheton: I am sorry to strike a discordant note, and I am not unmindful of the very great difficulties which the Government were under, and which they inherited from their predecessors and from preceding Governments, but does the Foreign Secretary not appreciate that there will be many people who feel that to talk of self-government for a people of 8 million or 9 million of whom less than 1 per cent, are literate or have any sort


of political knowledge or experience is only a mockery, and an abandonment of our trust?

Mr. Eden: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not really think that his figure of 1 per cent. is correct for the Sudan. I think that the figure he has in mind applies to certain areas of the Southern Sudan; it does not apply to the country as a whole. As regards the general policy, I am bound to point out that it is one which has been declared by successive Governments of all political complexions—I myself did so in November, 1951—with what I must say I thought to be the full assent of the House, without any discordant note at that time.

Mr. Rhodes: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware that the most important thing at the moment is,getting on with the elections, because unless they are held before the second week in March fair elections cannot be held at all; and it is very important that this Electoral Commission should be set up at once and the elections set in motion? If the Electoral Commission is wise and takes as its keynote that of the previous Electoral Commission, it will not go far wrong, and fair elections can be held.

Mr. Eden: I know that the hon. Member has considerable personal knowledge of this problem. I can only tell him that the desire to hold early elections is what has been in our minds throughout these negotiations, and if we had not been able to reach agreement now or within the next week or so, I agree with him that elections would not have been possible before the autumn, with all the consequences that would have ensued.

Captain Waterhouse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his remarks about the Sudan Civil Service will be echoed in every part of the Empire and every part of the world? Did I rightly understand my right hon. Friend to say that the whole of the Civil Service has to be removed within three 'years? My second question is whether it was made quite clear both to the Egyptians and the Sudanese that when their time for a choice came they could choose either complete independence, a link with Egypt or a link in some form with this country?

Mr. Eden: To reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend's first question, the agreement is, as I have already tried to explain to the House, for the Sudanisation of the service within three years. It would, of course, be possible, if the circumstances arose, for the Sudanese Government to approach the International Commission about that matter as it develops, if the point arose. My right hon. and gallant Friend's second question referred to choice. The choice is worded in this way; The Constituent Assembly makes a choice—it is not made now, it is made by the Constituent Assembly when it assumes office— and its choice would be either a link with Egypt in any form or complete independence. But, of course, as my right hon. and gallant Friend will realise, complete independence does not exclude the right of any country to apply, if it so wishes, for association with or membership of the British Commonwealth, or indeed to make any other arrangements it so wishes which are in accord with its complete independence.

Mr. McNeil: May I follow that point? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he visualises the constitution of this International Commission which is to supervise the Sudanisation? Will he tell us further whether he would not think it most regrettable if the Governor-General's Commission did not include the two Sudanese members proposed, and will he convey that to the Egyptian Government as well as give an indication of the view of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. There are two points involved. It is conceivable—I am not saying that that is what will happen; this has to be worked out in practice as we get on with the elections that the Sudan Commission could be the international authority to whom the appeal is made, but I have not accepted that, nor has anybody agreed to that. We may consider, when the time comes, whether some form of international authority is to be preferred for a final decision on these matters. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever the form of that international authority, it should certainly and clearly include Sudanese representatives.

Mr. McNeil: I am rather perplexed. Does the House now understand that there might be a Governor-General's Commission not including any Sudanese?

Mr. Eden: No.

Mr. McNeil: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he said that if there was a failure by the two Governments to agree, alternatives were to be nominated by the Sudan legislature, one of them to be a British subject, the other Egyptian.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Eden: It is extremely complicated, but in one sense I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman. In both the Electoral Commission and the Commission which will supervise Sudanisation there will, in different forms, emphatically be full Sudanese representation.

Mr. McCorquodale: Might I be allowed to endorse what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) said with regard to early elections? Might I first be allowed to ask whether it will be possible to hold them this spring with certainty? That is of prime importance. Secondly, might I ask for a definite assurance whether the proper personal interests of those administrators who are now doing so well in the Sudan will be firmly safeguarded?

Mr. Eden: To reply to my right hon. Friend's first question, nothing can be certain in the uncertain world in which we live, but the whole object which we had in trying to conclude an agreement by this date was to enable elections to be held before the weather makes it impossible. My right hon. Friend can be assured that everything we can do to bring that about will be done, and I believe that it will happen.
The position of the officials in the first instance, as my right hon. Friend well knows, will be an obligation of the Sudanese Government, and I should not like to say anything—it would be wrong of me to do so—to indicate that I am not sure that they are perfectly ready and willing to carry out that obligation to the full.

Mr. T. Reid: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that after three

years, under the Sudanisation scheme, British officials are bound to go, or alternatively can they be retained, and their rights properly looked after whether they are retained or whether they are to go?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. Their rights will be looked after. In the interim period the rights of the Sudanese service are the sole responsibility under the jurisdiction of the Governor-General himself.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: While endorsing the good wishes of my right hon. Friend for the success of this Agreement, could I ask him whether he considers the agreement which he has just concluded with the Egyptians represents a considerable advance, from the Sudanese point of view, on the agreement which the Sudanese political leaders concluded with the Egyptian representatives in Khartoum?

Mr. Eden: I do not know whether I ought to reply for the Sudanese representatives. If I were empowered to do so, my answer would definitely be, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Snow: Now that we appear to be in sight of settling this old problem, should we not remember the work of certain great men in the past, such as Sir Lee Stack?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: While welcoming this agreement as making it possible to get on with early elections, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will congratulate those concerned, including General Neguib, on establishing the principle which has always been accepted in this House, that ultimate sovereignty of the Sudan lies in the hands of the Sudanese?

BILL PRESENTED

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL

"to prohibit the carrying of offensive weapons in public places without lawful authority or excuse," presented by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe; supported by Mr. J. Stuart and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress 11th February.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

Clause 5.—(PROVISION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES TO BE SUBJECT TO BOARD'S CONSENT IN CERTAIN CASES.)

4.9 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, after "facilities," to insert:
or the maintenance of full employment.
I think there will be general agreement to discuss, with this Amendment, the Amendment in page 6, line 9, after "facilities," to insert:
or the maintenance of full employment.
Similar arguments to those which I now propose to advance would apply also to Amendments standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends in Clause 7, page 6, line 46, at the end to insert:
or with the maintenance of full employment.
and in Clause 8, page 8, line 36, at the end to insert:
and with the maintenance of full employment.
We do not propose to raise all these matters again when those Clauses are reached, but perhaps we might be able to take them now.

The Chairman: As they are on the same point, I think they might conveniently be taken together.

Mrs. White: That would be agreeable to us.
We on this side attach considerable importance to this Amendment, because it makes clear and specific the responsibility, not only for the production of iron and steel in the most efficient manner, but for the wider interests of the community. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) moved the Second Reading of the Labour Government's Act nationalising the iron and steel industry in November, 1948, he was able to advance as one of the principal arguments for that Measure that,
It will enable our steel industry…to become an effective national instrument for

planning full employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 78.]
Such sentiments have not, as far as I am aware, been expressed by the present Minister. That is not surprising, of course. We have been told on the highest authority that we should not expect to find figs growing on thistles, so we do not expect to find references to full employment in a Conservative Party Measure. Nevertheless, when we are discussing a Bill which covers a major industry such as the iron and steel industry we believe that there should be consideration of the duty of any Government to secure full employment.
The duty of the Government to secure full employment has been recognised by the Conservative Party in various election and propaganda documents, but one of our complaints about the party opposite is that, while it pays lip-service to this principle, it does not, when it comes to taking practical measures, arm itself with the necessary powers to put such a policy into effect. Pious obeisance is made when the words "full employment" are mentioned, but this Bill is yet another example, of which we have already had a number from the present Administration, of a type of Measure which does not preserve to the Government the powers necessary to implement a policy of planned full employment.
We consider it important, as far as this principle can he carried out within the
conditions under this Bill, unsatisfactory as they may be, to endeavour to place upon the Board, and therefore upon the Minister who is responsible for the Board, the obligation to take full employment into account as one of the factors when they reach decisions under this Clause. Last night, when discussing subsection (1), some reference was made to this subject, and at that time the Minister said that as a general rule he thought we would agree
it is unsound from any point of view to keep uneconomic plant in production, even including the sociological point of view."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 537.]
He then went on to quote the present position in South Wales in regard to the obsolescent tinplate works which are being put out of production, and mentioned the mill at Trostre, which is a very good example of the kind of situation we have in mind. Had one been thinking solely of the steel-making aspect, one


would not have put a mill at Trostre, because considering steel-making only from a strictly technological point of view, the nearer it could have been kept to Margam, the better. It was perfectly clear that in taking a decision, which the Minister himself has commended, to divide that process—which in my own constituency takes place on the same site—sociological considerations were very much to the fore.
4.15 p.m.
One could produce a number of other examples. For instance, in Ebbw Vale before the war, other factors had to be taken into account. There are also examples where those factors were not taken into account. Jarrow is the classic example, and Dowlais is another.
The argument we have put forward consistently is that in the organisation of modern industry we cannot be confined merely to technical factors. When considing whether a concern is economic or uneconomic, it is quite wrong to speak only of the limited economy of the firm or undertaking in question. In drawing up an economic balance-sheet, regard must be had for the social capital involved in reaching a decision. Not only the capital equipment of the firm or undertaking but also the capital which the community itself provides through public services of one kind and another is involved, as well as the human capital, which is not always easily transferable
In putting down these Amendments, we are endeavouring to convince the Government, if we can, that the considerations I have mentioned should be specifically recognised. If the Minister was able to make the speech he made last night, it seems clear that even now the argument I am advancing has not been fully accepted by Her Majesty's Government. If it had been fully accepted he could not, I believe, have made that speech in the way he did. He asked us to believe in the good intentions of the Board. I remind him that it is the paths to hell and not the paths to heaven which are paved with good intentions. Good intentions are not enough. We need something more than mere good intentions.
What concerns me is that, even if the Minister indicates that he is prepared to accept this Amendment, that would not be entirely satisfactory, because owing to

the general lack of power given to the Board in this Bill it would once again be merely putting words on paper to indicate a belief in the maintenance of full employment without taking the necessary powers to secure that very desirable end.
The general argument is one which we think should be accepted as a major principle. When there are technicological changes in an industry, account should be taken not only of the technicological advantages of those changes, but also of the human and social disadvantages which are almost inevitable. Even in my own constituency where, I am proud to say, we have one of the finest integrated works in the country, where everything is done on the same site, there are certain dislocations due to improvements in plant and methods of production whereby certain individuals, for whom one naturally has sympathy, find that in the new set-up they have rather less important and less well-paid work than they had when there were more but smaller furnaces in operation. So even under the most favourable conditions there is likely to be some dislocation. When it comes to establishing new processes or new works in other locations, then, of course, it is quite obvious that many other factors have to be taken into account.
For example, in the following Clause, which we shall be discussing in a moment, it is suggested that when carbonisation proposals are being entertained there should be consultation with the National Coal Board and with the Gas Council. That is all very right and proper, but it is equally important that when other proposals for major changes are being entertained there should be consultation with, for instance, the Minister of Labour, the Board of Trade, and so on.
We are not suggesting that there should be put into this Bill a list of the other Ministers with whom consultation should be maintained, but we are suggesting that if this Amendment were accepted it would follow as a natural course that, before decisions were taken for major changes in steel manufacture, the kind of consultation should take place which would follow from the acceptance of responsibility for maintenance of full employment. One may say that it is unnecessary to put that into the Bill because that would happen in any case. We prefer to be safe rather than sorry,


and we would like to have it in the Bill that this responsibility is definitely accepted. We would like to see the responsibility going a good deal further than is likely to be possible under this Clause, because, as I understand this Clause, according to the statement which the Minister made on Second Reading, the developments with which the Board would be concerned under Clause 5 would be only the very largest developments. In fact, the words that the Minister used were:
I should like to emphasise, as it does not seem to be generally understood, that its consent to development plans has to be obtained only in the case of schemes of such magnitude as to affect the balance of the industry. What we have in mind are big expansion schemes in the heavy end of the industry, costing many millions of pounds."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 275].
I suggest that there could be very serious social effects in certain neighbourhoods with schemes costing rather less than millions of pounds.
In the speech to which I am referring, the Minister said that the foundries would be of such relatively small value that they would not come into the purview of the Board under Clause 5, but I can foresee a situation in which the closing down or opening up of foundries might affect many very highly-skilled workers. I should have thought that even in instances of relatively minor changes in development the Board ought to accept some sort of responsibility. If it does not, then it cannot be pretended that the kind of organisation proposed under this Bill can satisfactorily be responsible for the direction of the industry or, what we are particularly discussing now, the maintenance of full employment both in the industry itself, in the industries which depend upon it and in localities which depend upon it.
This is a complex matter. The responsibility for the maintenance of full employment is the positive one of seeing that employment is maintained in certain areas and that other areas are not deprived of it. My hon. Friends, I know, have experience of this matter and fuller experience perhaps than I have, but no Welsh person who has studied the history of the steel industry in Wales could possibly be oblivious of the need to have the most careful and continuous observation of these other factors by any body which takes responsibility for the iron and steel

industry. The industry has had a chequered history—in South Wales more particularly—and we are still in the throes of that history. We have suffered, I suppose, as an area as much as any area from the vicissitudes of the iron and steel industry. We therefore hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment in principle, and that if he does accept the Amendment he will then search his conscience to make certain whether he has power in this Bill to enable him to carry it out.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I do not think that anyone on either side of the Committee would wish to dissent from the general sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). As a Welshman, I should be the last person to wish to dissent from them. She mentioned Dowlais. I was born in the shadow of the Dowlais works and both my father and my brother worked there. Both, in fact, were affected when the Dowlais works were closed down. I should therefore be the last person to wish to see a repetition of the tragedy which overtook my district and the people who live near to it.
Despite that, I do not feel that I can agree with this Amendment. Certainly in the context of Clause 5 the Amendment seems to me to be unnecessary, for reasons which I will explain in a moment. Apart from Clause 5, generally the incorporation of this phrase in the Bill would, to my mind, lead to undesirable confusion.
I think that the best way in which the policy of the steel industry could be guided would be to prevent an over-inflation of capacity during a boom. That is, of course, what happened both during and immediately after the First World War. Capacity was expanded to meet an artificial level of demand, and when the demand returned after the war boom to its more normal level, there was surplus capacity, and works such as Dowlais were forced to close down.
I agree that unrestrained competition might well mean an over-inflation of capacity. Producers might outbid one another and capacity could be piled up to an abnormal extent. It is for that reason that I believe in an external check to prevent unrestrained competition. This Clause does already provide


for that. The Clause lays it down that the Board shall have the power to veto a scheme which, in the Board's judgment, would over-balance the industry, and which would, in other words, lead to over-expansion of capacity, and thus invite a later depression. So the point, so far as capacity is concerned, is already covered.
4.30 p.m.
My second objection is on the ground of terminology. We heard yesterday a very eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) objecting to the phrase "competitive conditions." He argued that no body of economists and no body of lawyers could possibly agree among themselves upon what the term "competitive conditions" means. I entirely agree with him. What he said in relation to that phrase applies with equal strength and equal force to this matter. How many of us would agree on what is and what is not full employment? Lord Beveridge said that full employment meant an unemployment percentage of 3 per cent. I should imagine that hon. Members opposite would not accept that. When this Government took office, the unemployment percentage was between 1 and 1.5 per cent. It is now perhaps a little over 2 per cent. Hon. Members opposite would probably say that there is no longer full employment and my hon. Friends and I would maintain that there is full employment.
I am not arguing the point. All I say is that there is disagreement and that the same disagreement would be shown in such a body as the Iron and Steel Board. The phrase "full employment" is a shorthand phrase. I might also say that it is a political slogan. It is far too indefinite and hazy to be incorporated in a statute as a directive to a public authority.
The greater part of the hon. Lady's speech did not seem to be directed to justifying this Amendment. The greater part of it was concerned with the question of location. She was arguing that social considerations should be taken into account in the location of works. Although nothing is provided in this Bill in regard to that matter, it is my belief— and I should be grateful if my right hon.

Friend would confirm or deny it—that it is already provided for elsewhere. I believe that there exists such a thing as an industrial development certificate and that the Minister would have a say before any works were placed anywhere. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could add to our information on that topic.
Finally, although I think it inconvenient to discuss this Amendment in its relation to Clause 8 as well as in its relation to Clause 5, I should object to the incorporation of the phrase there, too. I should object to it because of the haziness which I have already mentioned and because price policy does not seem to me to be the way either to avert unemployment or to get away from a situation of unemployment in this industry.
Let us assume that there is a slump with much unemployment. Presumably the Board would be instructed to lower prices. But experience has shown that in an industry such as this, however much we lower prices we do not in fact expand employment. The most we can do is to pursue over a long term a stable price policy. If the worst were to happen and there were unemployment generally, what would be necessary would be to expedite and accelerate the execution of the development plans for this industry. To do that by tax remissions and so forth is a much wider matter to be dealt with by general means. I must say that it does not seem to me to be a thing which could be promoted by this Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I can assure the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) that I do not under-rate his head or the warmth of his heart, but I think that on this occasion he has let his head get the better of his heart rather unnecessarily. Let us see what we are considering. We are considering first the matters which the Board have to take in mind before they can refuse consent to any proposal.
The Board has not got a general power. It has to be satisfied, under the Bill as at present drafted, that the proposal will seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain. When it is


satisfied of that, it can act. That is the matter it has to consider. I do not want to rub this in, because I believe everyone in this Committee now feels a kind of national penitence for what happened in the years between the wars, but the history of Dowlais is a very clear pointer to the kind of danger which we must contemplate when considering this type of action.
What happened as regards Dowlais, and other places as well, was—and here I quote from the language of the Bill—that, in the interests of the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain, a large amount of iron and steel making capacity was moved from the coal fields of Wales to the iron ore fields, largely in the Midlands and the East of England. Factories were shut down, or fell out of use as obsolete, in Wales when at the same time there was a corresponding increase of factories at, for instance, Scunthorpe or Corby in my own constituency. It was roughly at the same time. As I understand, it was part of the same development.
For similar reasons there was a move—taking the special case of Corby—from the neighbourhood of Glasgow down to the middle of Northamptonshire. Both these moves had the most serious consequences on employment. It is not entirely true to say, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the only mistake made between the wars was that at one period iron and steel capacity was inflated. There was another side to the picture. Some attempts to provide iron and steel capacity were prevented by the action of the iron and steel masters of the period. It was their joint action, as I well remember, that prevented the establishment of an iron and steel works at Jarrow. It is a rather more complicated picture than that.
The short point is the same through the whole of the history of this industry, that plenty of regard has been had by the industry, properly and naturally, to the efficient and economic development of production facilities. If from time to time mistakes have been made, that is still the matter that they have been endeavouring to consider and the end which they have set themselves. By and large, I should say from that technical point of view that we could stand comparison very well with almost any other country, but the continuous difficulty has

been that these major changes have been made, and still can be made, without regard to the overwhelming importance of this industry in the economic life of the country, and especially on the question of full employment.
I have a very short answer to the hon. Member on the other point he made. He said that full employment was capable of various definitions. So is the elephant. It is a difficult animal to define: it is comparatively easy to recognise. Full employment is perhaps much the same. But what we are considering here is not the exact meaning of either the one phrase or the other. We have to consider the circumstances in which these two groups of matters may be seriously affected. It is clear enough for those purposes. It is mere hair splitting for the hon. Gentleman to try to found his opinion on a question of whether full employment means 10 jobs for nine men or 10 jobs for 10 men or 11 jobs for 10 men or some other elaborate statistical equivalent.
The question is, what has the Board to bear in mind? What is it that will limit the Board's functioning in these cases? I remind the Committee that, as is most appropriate in this sort of matter, we are not merely dealing with the Board. We are dealing also with Ministerial responsibility, for there is a very easy and wide avenue open for appeal to the Minister on a refusal by the Board; and the responsibility is, as indeed it ought to be, not merely the responsibility of a Board, which is appointed in the way we have settled in the earlier Clauses of the Bill, but also of a Minister who is responsible to this House.
I cannot see why this Amendment should be refused. After all, "the maintenance of full employment" is a pretty well-known phrase, and, I should have thought, a responsibility which any Government, even a Tory Government, would recognise without demur. It has been recognised, not only in this country, but in the Charter of Human Rights in the United Nations, and in our own representations to other countries when we have met them at Strasbourg and similar places. Thanks to the efforts of my own party, it is rapidly becoming something so commonly recognised as not


only a duty, but a supreme and overriding duty, that it is really somewhat late in the day to say it ought either to be neglected or overlooked.
We are dealing not merely with the question of proposals for extensions but with the question of full employment and of price policy. I think I heard the hon. Member for Hall Green say—and if he did I fully agree—that a price policy by itself cannot promote full employment. I feel inclined to say to him that I wish he would tell that to some of his right hon. and hon. Friends; because from time to time they seem to forget it, and to think that, by the mere operation of prices, full employment can be obtained.
I do not think for a moment that it can, but I do say that one of the objects and one of the proper uses of a price policy is to maintain full employment; and that it can have a distinct and appreciable effect in that direction. It can have that effect whether it is right or wrong. If it is wrong in this matter, it can have a most damaging effect on employment. If it is right it can, to a limited extent, have an ameliorating effect. Surely those matters have to be considered and taken into account side by side with efficiency and technical development, and as the more important of the two considerations, just as much when we are considering prices as when we are considering extensions.
In view of what the hon. Member said at the beginning of his speech, I do not want to put this too strongly, and certainly, I hope, not in any offensive way. That is the last thing I should wish to do after what he said at the beginning of his speech. But in the past this industry has been apt not to look sufficiently at this kind of thing. As an industry we cannot expect it to do anything other than promote itself technically, make its profits, keep good labour relations—as, on the whole, it has—and generally to behave as a single efficient industrialist with a good conscience should behave. That is the most we can expect.
When we come to the question of full employment, we must have the overriding—I use the word deliberately—authority, not only of the Board, but of someone responsible to this House. We must see that the Bill does not shut out

that over-riding authority by an unnecessarily limited statement of what has to be borne in mind in this connection. I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment. He can do no conceivable harm to the Bill by so doing. So far as I can see, he can do no harm whatever. But what he can do is to make it clear that the hearts of all of us in this Committee are in the same place, and in this instance a useful contribution may be made by our heads, and by the tongue we use in this Bill.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Everyone is agreed that one of the primary objectives of any Government should be the maintenance of full employment, whether it be the 3 per cent. of Lord Beveridge or some other figure. But I think the Minister would be ill advised if he accepted this Amendment. The policy of full employment should be one which is applied nationally. To try to pin it down to a particular industry would lead to a great deal of confusion, and ultimately to a great deal of inefficiency in all classes of industry.
It is all very well to say that we should have regard to the human factor when a plant, or a portion of a plant, has to be closed down. I think we should have full regard to that. But the humane thing to do is not to keep people at a job which is really a failing job, but to see that those people are transferred. under proper provisions—and thank heaven we already have a great deal of provision for that kind of thing—to more efficient plants.
I have seen a good deal of inefficiency in the iron and steel industry. I was chairman of an iron and steel works. I was brought in and given full powers. Unfortunately, after a year or two I had to advise the bank concerned that the only thing to do was to wind up the organisation. Those works had been kept going far too long from the point of view of efficiency. It would have been far kinder to the people concerned had the works been closed down at the moment it appeared that they could not go on and proper arrangements made— not necessarily by the iron and steel industry but, so to speak, by national machinery—for those people to be transferred to a more efficient section of the industry.


If we impose this provision on this industry, we ought to have a similar provision with regard to other industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") I am glad to hear that, because hon. Members opposite are making my point for me. We should get industry after industry—

Mr. Frederick Mulley: There is nothing to suggest that the only consideration is full employment in the iron and steel industry. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the iron and steel industry is one factor? What we want to consider is employment generally, and in fact the arguments put by the hon. Member support our side of the case.

Mr. Colegate: No doubt the hon. Member will have an opportunity of putting his argument, but let me deal with the one point. To specify in connection with one industry that this consideration should be taken into account will inevitably leave the impression in the minds of the people concerned with it that we have to consider full employment there more than the over-all development of industry in this country, which is the only sound policy for getting national full employment.
The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) mentioned the closing down of a particular part of the steel industry, but we must look at it in a very wide sense. One part of an industry might be closed down, which would lead to another and more efficient section of the industry going ahead. I could go in some detail into the position of the industry in North Lincolnshire and the decision to go to Ebbw Vale, which I thought a great mistake. It would have been a very good thing for some people in Ebbw Vale had they been transferred to the new housing estate being built at the efficient steel works of North Lincolnshire.

Mr. Jack Jones: Under a Labour council.

Mr. Colegate: The Labour council was living on the private enterprise of the people who developed the North Lincolnshire ironfields.

Mrs. White: Is the hon. Member aware that there are some people who do prefer to live in Ebbw Vale, surprising though it may seem?

Mr. Colegate: I understand that people might prefer to live in Ebbw Vale, but at the same time people do have to make moves like that. I have had to transfer my home to where my employment was. Nothing can be worse than to encourage people to live in places with an inefficient industry, instead of going ahead with the development, progress and efficiency needed in industry, and which, in the long run, are needed to obtain full employment.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) has succeeded in frightening me. We have the spectacle here of a Government bringing along a Bill to de-nationalise the steel industry, and the hon. Gentleman's interpreting one of its results as migration from one part of the country to another. I wonder how he fared when he had to move, and whether he was able to persuade the local authorities to let him have a council house for five or six years.

Mr. Colegate: I never needed to get a council house. Hon. Members opposite may not be aware that the vast number of new houses in modern coalfields and in the iron and steel industry were provided by private enterprise and not by the councils.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman has not understood my point. I asked whether he was able when he moved to get the local council to put him into a house immediately, or whether he was able to purchase a house into which he could go.

Mr. Colegate: Private enterprise provided me with a house.

Mr. Lee: If that is the conception which the promoters of the Bill have of the future after the Bill becomes an Act, it is very unsatisfactory. There is a great danger that there will no longer be full employment, because steel-using industries are not able to get sufficient steel. If that is to continue, as hon. Gentlemen suppose it will, I would ask engineers to take particular notice of the point and to regulate their production accordingly. I put it as high as that.
We have discussed in this Committee whether the Government really want the Board to have effective supervision, and we have moved the Amendment asking them to insert the word "control." They


have refused point blank to do so. That refusal regulates our thinking on the main issue. We want to give the Board effective supervision and control over the industry. The Government reply that the Board have effective supervision. To supervise and control an industry means, to us, that on behalf of the State we have the ability to ensure that there shall not be suffering among the employees in the industry, and that the Government will regulate the conditions to ensure that that will not happen.
The two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the Government side said how their hearts bled at the thought of pre-war conditions coming back again, but before they had time to catch their breath and start again they said that they did not accept our Amendment, which would force the Government to accept this responsibility. I do not trust hon. Gentlemen opposite in the least, after that. We ask that when this industry passes into private ownership there shall be the same conditions of employment and guarantee of full employment as there have been during the period of the Labour Government and since the industry has been nationalised.
Last night the Minister told us that the only plant that he envisaged being closed down was the uneconomic plant. He is now trying to peddle the steel industry about the country. If there are economic plants he is the man who will perpetrate a swindle upon somebody. How can he now say that it is possible or probable that uneconomic plants will have to close down when at the same time he is trying to impress people who may be prospective purchasers? Is he not saying: "I am trying to sell you uneconomic plants"?
I should have thought that sort of thing would he left in the hands of the Agency and that uneconomic plants would not go hack into private ownership. The Minister or his Agency will know whether a plant is uneconomic or not. That will be the determining factor for accepting notification of closing down by any firm which has bought plant from it. The Agency is the instrument which should know whether the plant is uneconomic and which should decide whether the plant is to be

closed down on the ground that it is uneconomic, and not the people who purchase the plant.
I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. As we see it, control must be in the interests of those who are employed within the industry. In the case of steel and one or two other industries, control is particularly vital for another reason The steel industry is the feeder of manufacturing industries which are the biggest employers in Britain. Mention has been made of the closing down of small plants. I have seen this happen, when 20 or 30 moulders lost their jobs. It was deplorable, but I should not have argued that those small foundries were uneconomic. When people are thrown out of work, is that not a social matter and one for the Minister? He must not keep his mind so much fixed on the industry as to blind himself to the social effects of loss of production in the industry, and in the manufacturing industries which it feeds.
For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will either accept the Amendment or, in de-nationalising an industry which has now full employment, he will take the responsibility upon himself of ensuring that nothing that he does will detract from the ability of the industry to continue to give full employment. Those are considerations which any civilised community in 1953 must accept. Hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us how they remember the bad old days and would not do anything to resurrect them, and then they plead with their Minister not to accept the only proposal which would prevent those days being brought back. It makes me say that those who hoped that the new Toryism did not mean what the old Toryism meant are getting back the feelings they had when they lined up in the unemployment queues in the 1930s.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite engender that sort of bitterness inside the House of Commons, it may go out into the whole of the industry. Any hope we have of getting a great drive for production and exports will then have gone, and the hope of a decent standard of life in Britain will have gone with it. This issue is as big as that, and I hope the Minister will give us a reply.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: Right through this debate, yesterday and on previous days, what has been conspicuous has been the reasonableness shown by hon. Members in bringing forward every constructive idea that could be brought to bear upon this Bill. I hope, therefore, that this afternoon we shall not stray on to paths that will lead us into dialectical argument which would do a disservice to the men in the industry. The worst thing that could happen would be to incorporate in this Bill words such as "full employment" which have a great sentimental and hypnotic appeal, but which we know in our own hearts cannot be implemented merely by putting them into a statute or by giving powers to a Minister or to a board.
Let us be realistic. If we indulge in emotionalism, and if we give the impression to the working people in this industry or any other industry that full employment can be commanded or legislated for. we shall be disloyal to them, we shall be doing them a grave disservice and we shall be leading them astray. One thing is clear in the mind of every hon. Member of this Committee, that we want to aim for maximum employment at maximum levels for a maximum period, which is an entirely different thing.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) spoke from great experience and in restrained terms. The objects she had in mind were not related directly to full employment but more to the sociological question of the location of a new plant, to the transfer of production from one plant to another or from one district to another. Those matters were debated yesterday at great length and I though the Minister dealt fully with them. The undertaking was given that no firm can make any such changes in their production without reference to the Minister and without the Board having something to say about it.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: indicated dissent.

Mr. Robson Brown: I am sorry, but the Minister gave us an undertaking on that.

Mr. Lee: No.

Mr. Robson Brown: If the hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT for yesterday, he will see it.

Mr. Lee: The Minister said he would agree that there should be notification to the Board but he would not give the Board any power to effect a stoppage in the carrying out of such an ultimatum.

Mr. Robson Brown: Let me be perfectly frank, because it has to be said some time. On this side of the Committee we find ourselves in conflict with hon. Members opposite on one basic point. It is the presumption that for the operation of the Steel Bill, the judge is supine and the jury is dishonest; in other words. the Minister will never do what is right and the Board will always do what is wrong.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: The same people.

Mr. Robson Brown: That has been the underlying implied argument from the other side of the Committee right through, the debate. Now let me move to something objectively, referring to what the hon. Lady said with regard to employment. We have to accept it, and it cannot be repeated too many times, that short-term policies may sometimes lead to long-term distress. We may keep a plant in operation which is inefficient for the most humane of reasons and do permanent damage to a district or to the industry as a consequence.
One of the basic responsibilities of the Board is to maintain a sure balance between the absolute and ultimate efficiency of any part of the industry related to the sociological needs and requirements of a particular locality or, if I may put it another way, a keep a true balance between local group interests and the general interests of the industry and of those employed in it.
It might well be that sometimes, because of a change in trade and for no other reason, a situation arises where a specific plant in a certain district may be operating to the general detriment of the industry and to the holding up of long-term, properly-worked-out plans for the development of the industry as a whole. It must also be accepted, however, that as long as trade is there and the plant can operate efficiently, no one will shut it down. That is axiomatic in commerce.

Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to call his attention to the fact that we are considering the circumstances in which the Board can or cannot refuse its consent to proposals for extension. At present the only thing the Board can have regard to is the efficiency of the industry. If the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Board should always have regard to the maintenance of full employment, he will support our Amendment.

Mr. Robson Brown: Where the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself and all hon. Members on this side of the Committee are in disagreement with him is in connection with the play upon the words, "full employment." Yesterday afternoon it was made clear that the Minister would take into consideration the sociological impact of any proposals put to them. We cannot do more than that. We cannot put that in precise words.

Mr. Strauss: indicated dissent.

Mr. John Freeman: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us, if this is his thesis, under what power the Board is enabled to do that?

Mr. Robson Brown: Under its general responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The difference between the other side of the Committee and ourselves is that hon. Members opposite always want things written large, with clear directions laid down, page after page. We have seen that in too many other nationalised industries to wish to repeat it.
I want to make two final points, one of detail, in connection with historic facts. In regard to Dowlais, the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) made a personal reference from his own experience to its impact upon his own life. That industry was not taken out of Wales. It went to Cardiff. I am not arguing that the impact upon Dowlais was clear, concise and long term, but that the industry was not taken out of the Principality. So far as Jarrow was concerned, I dealt with that on the Second Reading of this Bill. The position was that an integrated plant could not be put upon that site because it was not a practical proposition.
With regard to employment in any industry, what we have to aim, plan, strive

and work for all the time is steady continuous employment at a high level with the minimum of ups and downs, variations or fluctuations so far as we can control matters. By so arranging the industry we want what I call steady and continuous employment which must go hand in hand with competitive efficiency. The minute anyone disregards the basic economic factors in that respect, damage is done ultimately to the men whom we wish to benefit.

Mr. George Darling: Since the party opposite have occupied those benches I have been waiting for speeches, such as the one to which we have just listened, which would indicate how far that party will run away from the 1944 Coalition White Paper on this problem. It is true that the White Paper did not speak of measures to achieve full employment but of measures to achieve a high level of employment. I shall not quarrel about that definition, but it is quite clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) that while he talks about wanting maximum employment, he says that it cannot be ordered or directed or legislated for. It is in those terms that the party opposite is running away from the White Paper produced with such a flourish by the Coalition Government.

Mr. Robson Brown: What I said was nothing of the kind. I said that it cannot be done by legislation alone. We can help and plan and move towards it, we can have forward views on it, and we can do everything possible towards it but full employment is related to global conditions, and not to national conditions alone.

Mr. Darling: If tomorrow the hon. Gentleman reads his speech in HANSARD, he will notice that he did not say the word "alone," but I will not argue that. We say that we can plan and direct the economy of the country to maintain full employment. We will not quarrel whether the figure of temporary unemployment is 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. We know what we mean by full employment; that there are more jobs than workers, or just as many jobs as workers, and there is temporary unemployment while workers move around from job to job.
We believe that we can plan and direct the economy of the country to get full employment, and in all the industrial Measures, such as the Bill, with which we deal, we believe that it is a matter of common prudence and a matter of policy that every industry should be reminded that it has to play its part in the Government direction of industry to maintain full employment. In this connection, as has been pointed out, all the Amendments which deal with this question of full employment are concerned with more than the steel industry, because the steel industry has to play its part in providing full employment for the workers in all industries.
We have had some personal references. May I give one? We remember that in Sheffield in the 1920's there were 70,000 unemployed. Seventy thousand was quite a large number of unemployed in that city, but they were not all steel workers. Quite a number of them were engineers. I was not in Sheffield at the time, but was finishing my engineering apprenticeship. There was no work for thousands of apprentices as tradesmen, and we had to get out of the industry. How stupid it was that what skill we had was wasted.
The stupidity arose in this way. The railways wanted new locomotives and rolling stock, new stations, goods yards and all the rest; they wanted new cranes and new methods of handling freight. But the steel workers in Sheffield, who should have been making the plates, the castings and the forgings, were walking the streets, and the engineers, who should have been making the stuff, were out of work and lining up at the employment exchanges.
The cotton industry should have been re-equipped in the 1920s and 1930s with new mills and machinery, but nothing was done. There was no direction or planning. It was left to the industrialists to get us out of the mess but they failed, and they failed for the very reason that the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) has given: it is not their responsibility. It is the responsibility of the State to begin with, and it is the responsibility of the boards and of the people who come into the public control of industry to accept those directions and to play their part in giving us full employment.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: What the hon. Member has to do is to prove how all this, which I do not dispute, would be effected by his Amendment. He is not dealing with my contention that the point is already provided for in the Clause.

Mr. Darling: I disagree entirely with the hon. Member, and I will proceed to answer him. None of use can be sure that within the next two or three years we shall not be faced with another serious trade recession. At the end of the rearmament programme, with tensions in the world that may upset confidence in commerce and trade, whatever the reasons may be, it is likely that the threat of another recession will arise. If it comes, hon. Members opposite will argue, as several of them have done already, that the same mistakes as were made in the 1920s and 1930s will not be made again and that the Government will take action to deal with this threat of a trade recession and the threat of mass unemployment.
5.15 p.m.
This is where I answer the hon. Member for Hall Green. I apologise if I have mistaken his arguments. What I am saying now applies to all the Amendments that we have put down on this subject. We cannot forget that the same people who were running the steel companies in the 1920s and 1930s will be running the steel companies again after the Act is passed. We cannot leave them to carry on in the way that they did between the wars without some direction placed upon them to get the steel industry to play its part in stopping the drift to unemployment.
We cannot forget also that the Government, the party who now sit on the benches opposite, are the same party as were in power during that earlier period, the Government and party that did nothing at all to stop the drift to mass unemployment. We are now told that the Conservative Party have goon intentions on this matter, but good intentions are not good enough. We need evidence of the Government's determination to do some planning and to give direction if the threat of mass unemployment arises.
We want to show that the Amendments are wider than their mere application to the steel industry. If a trade recession comes along, the steel industry will be


the key to whatever action has to be taken to deal with unemployment. Orders and contracts will be placed for steel for—

Mr. Aubrey Jones: When the hon. Member says that the steel industry is the key to the whole question of employment, is he aware that the capital investment of the steel industry amounts to 2 per cent. of the total annual capital investment of the whole country?

Mr. Darling: That has nothing to do with the matter. The steel industry is the key industry in this sense: that the public works schemes that no doubt will be developed, as is foreshadowed even under the Coalition White Paper, to provide work for those who are unemployed—necessary public works schemes like the new road bridge over the Forth, the new bridge over the Severn, and other necessary schemes that have been held up for so long—are all made of steel. The re-equipping of industries in the new distressed areas, like Lancashire, that will arise, which will be very necessary and desirable from the viewpoint of the national economy to provide work, will depend on steel. The new mills will have steel girders, and the machinery that is put in them will be made of steel. At the same time, it will be found that if any planned attempt is made to develop our export trade, perhaps on a barter basis with other countries that suffer from unemployment, it will be steel products all the time that are leading in the planning of that export drive.
In all this, we cannot leave the steel companies to decide for themselves what they are going to do. If the nation is to plan to deal with and to counter mass unemployment, the steel industry has to be directed as if it were a wartime operation and the whole thing must be done as if we were in a war effort. Unless there is some public authority over the steel industry which is capable of directing the steel companies to serve the interests of the nation, it will be quite impossible for us to carry out even the rather weak and vague intentions that were expressed in the Coalition Government's White Paper for dealing with a possible trade recession and unemployment.
If the Government do not today express their determination to deal with

unemployment in the way that I have suggested—Government direction, with an Iron and Steel Board ready to take charge of the industry and to do the job properly—we shall all have to accept the view that all we shall get from the Government is a pious expression of good intentions.

Mr.I.Mikardo: Whatever conclusion this Committee may come to as a result of this debate, I feel sure that the workers in the steel industry, and indeed the workers in all the other industries in the country, will have noticed and attached significance to the fact that the only three speeches made so far from the Government benches have all had the point of argument that in the development of the steel industry we ought not to take into account the need for full employment.
I am quite sure that that is an argument which will not be lost upon the workers of the country. In some cases it will do no more than reinforce deep feelings which they already have, and which hon. Members opposite during the last General Election campaign and before sought very carefully to dispel, with their Industrial Charter, their lipservice to full employment and other means of the same kind.
I want to say a word or two in reply to some observations of the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). I share with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) the desire not to say anything antagonistic, in view of the tone of his speech, but he objected to this Amendment on the ground, among others, that full employment is a term which cannot be defined. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering pointed out, the Amendment would be equally effective even if it were the fact that full employment is a term that cannot be defined. But, unlike the term "competition" about the definition of which there was a difference of opinion yesterday, full employment is a term for which there is a recognised and widely—indeed, universally—accepted definition, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) referred.
The definition is quite simple. It is a condition in which there are always more vacancies for workers globally than


there are globally workers seeking vacancies; or, as it is so often commonly put, a condition in which there are more jobs looking for men than men looking for jobs. That is a very simple definition, and one against which it is superlatively easy at any moment to check whether the condition of full employment exists. Once every fortnight the Ministry of Labour tell us how many vacancies there are and how many people there are looking for work, and it lies within the capacity even of hon. Members to put the two figures side by side and see which one of them is the greater.
I do not wish in this debate to make any general party points about full employment, but the hon. Gentleman referred to differences of view there might be between the two sides of the Committee on whether there is now full employment, and so I might just mention in reply that if one takes this universally accepted definition that full employment exists where there are more vacancies than there are people looking for vacancies, then by that definition we had full employment every fortnight when the Ministry of Labour figures came out from the end of the war until the first Monday in September, 1952. Since the first Monday in September, 1952, we have not had full employment. If hon. Members opposite can find some consolation in that, they are perfectly welcome to it.
The hon. Member for Hall Green was wrong in his reference to Lord Beveridge. I beg him to go back and refresh his memory of what Lord Beveridge said. He did not say that full employment exists when there is no more than 3 per cent. of unemployment. What he said was that full employment exists when there are more vacancies than people seeking jobs. That does not mean, he added, that there is no unemployment; indeed, that condition can arise with unemployment figures of up to 3 per cent. What the hon. Gentleman quoted as Lord Beveridge's definition was not his definition; it was a part of his explanation of his definition.
I want to refer to the two remarkable speeches made by the hon. Members for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) and Burton (Mr. Colegate)—two speeches, I thought, which were characterised more by passion than by authority. Both of them seemed to me to be taking full employment to

mean something that it does not mean and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who moved the Amendment, did not refer as meaning at all. Full employment does not mean—and we are not demanding in this Amendment—that everybody in the steel industry should be permanently guaranteed his existing job or a job in his existing firm, no matter how inefficient that firm is.
The two hon. Members were flogging an extremely dead horse—the deadest dead horse that I ever set eyes on—when they were arguing that we ought not to maintain full employment merely to keep inefficient plants in operation. Of course, we agree at once that people ought not to be maintained in work in their existing jobs or firms in order to maintain the existence of inefficient plants. But what we do say, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East pointed out with very great force, is that where we have, in the interests of the nation, to move people because we are moving capacity, that movement should he done with a great sense of social responsibility for all the consequences involved.
A steel master who wants, no doubt for very good technical reasons, to move his plant has got no responsibility except to provide jobs for the workers whom he will put off. If a steel master said "Look chaps, if you come with us we will provide you with jobs; and, indeed, we will go further; we may provide you with a house," that employer would feel a great sense of having fulfilled his social responsibility to the full. I think he would be right because he would be doing all that one could reasonably require of him.
He would have no responsibility to see that the grown-up daughters of his steel workers could get employment where they were going to be moved, but that is a very important factor. He would have no responsibility to see that his steel workers' children of school age could get schooling where they were going to be moved. That is a very important factor as well. All we are saying is, not that every steel worker should be guaranteed his existing job or his job in an existing firm, but rather that all the social implications of such change should be taken into account.

Mr. Colegate: Surely the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with us. He is saying that the whole policy of full employment should be applied nationally and not to one particular section of workers?

Mr. Mikardo: I was just about to come to that point, which is a valid one and deserves a reply. First, may I point out that the demand which was made by the hon. Member for Esher was a much more thorough-going demand and, indeed, a totally impracticable demand than anything we have said, because what he asked for was maximum employment. What does "maximum" mean? It means the most. The most employment we can get is when every worker is in a job—that is 0.000 per cent. unemployment, which can never be got in practice. We all know that there must be moves and shifts, as we have all seen.
The hon. Member for Burton, in effect, says this: "Granted the need for looking after full employment, why should that be the business of the steel industry or of any other industry? This should be dealt with on a central basis." He is partly right, and if what he says means that he has become a convert to central economic planning for full employment, I welcome his conversion, and I have much joy over the one sinner that repenteth. But it cannot be done entirely on a central basis. To some extent each industry must take some responsibility, because if iron moulders are thrown out of work on a Friday afternoon they cannot be re-employed on the following Monday for the manufacture of silk stockings. I do not think we have complete vocational interchangeability. Certainly while we have the housing shortage there cannot be complete geographical interchangeability. We have to supplement central planning by some planning done by industry and by each area.

Mr. Colegate: I want to get this point clear. If the central—

ROYAL ASSENT

Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and. having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund Act, 1953.
2. Law Reform (Personal Injuries) (Amendment) Act, 1953.

IRON AND STEEL BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 3, after "facilities," insert:
or the maintenance of full employment.

Question again proposed, "That these words be there inserted."

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Colegate: When our proceedings were interrupted I was asking the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) a question concerning his point relating to a full employment policy as operated by the central authority compared with when it was operated by the iron and steel industry. He gave as an illustration the fact that the central authority could not take an iron moulder on a Friday afternoon and put him to work on the Monday making silk stockings. If these words are inserted in the Bill, can the iron and steel industry do any better?

Mr. Mikardo: I think so. My point was that there are no hard and fast rules about it and we must have a combination of action by the Government, by industries and by regions. None of those three authorities can escape its responsibility, and we want to ensure, by means of the Amendment, that the steel industry makes what contribution it can. None of us is saying that employment in the steel industry should be only the responsibility of the steel companies or that they can, or should, wave any magic wands. We say that the industry ought


undoubtedly to have to make a contribution, and we are trying to ensure that it does so.
5.45 p.m.
We are not asking that full employment should be the only criterion to be taken into account in the development of the steel industry. If we were, some of the strictures of the hon. Members for Esher and Burton would have been valid. We say that in the making of these complex decisions about expansions, developments, contractions and other movements in a great industry like steel, among the factors to be taken into account is the need to maintain full employment.
I shall be very surprised if the Government take the view that that is not valid. I hope the Government will not take the view, as the hon. Member for Hall Green did, that we do not know what full employment is. At the General Election the Conservative Party pledged itself to maintain full employment. The hon. Member subscribed to that pledge, and he must have known what it meant then. All I am asking him to do is to accept the definition of full employment in our Amendment which he accepted at the time of the General Election.
I shall be very surprised if the Government take the view that the need to maintain full employment ought not to be included as one of the criteria to be taken into account in planning the development of the steel industry. I feel sure that the Minister, to whatever extent he may or may not agree with the observations which have been made by his hon. Friends on the Amendment, at least has a more highly developed political sense than they have and will appreciate what will be the effect on workers in all industries, not merely the steel industry, if it goes out from the Government that they do not consider that full employment ought to be taken into account at all in the development of the steel industry. I should have thought that, if only on grounds of expediency, the Minister would be sorely tempted to accept the Amendment. I should prefer him to accept it on its merits but, if we cannot have that, I will take as second best his acceptance of it for reasons of expediency.

Mr. Fienburgh: It has often been said that we are all Keynesians now because

we all believe in the principle of maintaining full employment. Some of us believe in it passionately as one of the prime objectives of economic policy. Others believe in it as a useful phrase to be used in the perorations of speeches. Some believe it is necessary in the instruments and organisations of economic planning to ensure that they have the maintenance of full employment in mind and, having considered full employment, have the power to carry out what they regard as being the fitting policy. Others do not take that view; they seem to think that if we relapse into a mood of post-prandial mysticism and mutter the words "full employment," "co-operation" and "we are all good chaps together" somehow proper decisions will be taken at the right time and in the right place.
I want, first, to remove any illusions from the mind of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown). We are not trying to place upon the steel industry the entire burden of operating full employment in all industries and all ancillary industries in this country. We do not say that the steel industry alone should have that job to do. We say that steel is a key factor in the country's investment policy—which we are not discussing now—in its price policy, and, particularly, in the maintenance of employment in other industries by the effect which it can have upon the capital investment programme of the country as a whole at any particular time.
The hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) rather deprecated the key position that steel has in this respect. He admitted that steel could, through its investment programme, help to maintain full employment, but he went on to point out that it was very difficult to make people invest when they did not particularly desire to invest, but that by some wonderful method of tax remissions the required investment would be forthcoming; but in saying that he gave us our entire case against private ownership and substantiated our case for public ownership.
One of our main points all along has been that the existence of the steel industry as a big investor which could inject new investment into our economy at appropriate times was, one of the major factors in maintaining full employment, as proper decisions cannot be taken under


private enterprise, because we cannot make a man invest his own money when he sees that the conditions are rather bleak, whereas under public ownership the required decision in the national interest can be taken.
The main point that I wish to make on the Amendments we are now discussing is related to Clause 8 of the Bill, which gives the Minister power to instruct the Board to make determinations on prices. We must remember that the price policy followed by the steel industry has a repercussive effect running through the whole field of capital investment in this country. It is rather like a stone being dropped into a pond, the ripples from which spread out until they hit the banks.
If the steel industry is operating a price policy which, in the words of the Bill, is consistent with an economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products, but which, at the same time, is inhibiting the investment of other industries, because they find that the cost of steel is making them rather cautious, then there can be a tremendously inhibiting effect upon the whole investment programme of the country. Yet, on the other hand, if the price of steel is fixed at a lower level, there can be an injection of new investment throughout all the steel-using industries, not just those which use it as a raw material, but all those industries which wish to expand and create new plant and buildings.
There is no doubt that, when any Government comes to face the problem of maintaining full employment in a period of economic disturbance, the Government will have to pay attention, amongst many other things, of course—and we are not saying that this is the only one—to the price of steel. Surely, a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is the Leader might be expected to have rather original and lively ideas on this matter, because the right hon. Gentleman at one time suggested that if, for the maintenance of full employment or for the improvement of trade generally, it was necessary to run the railway industry at a loss he would recommend that it should be done. Surely, in any parallel circumstances, if at any particular time, because of the need to inject new investment into industry, it becomes necessary even to run the steel industry at a

loss by the operation of what, in narrower terms, would be called an unrealistic price policy, the Government must be prepared to do so.
But, in the terms of the Bill as it is drafted, the Government will have no such chance. The Bill says,
provided that the Minister shall not give any such directions "—
that is, directions to the Board about price determination—
unless he considers it necessary in the national interest, and consistent with promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products.
The price policy then operating can be quite consistent with
the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products
yet inconsistent with the maintenance of full employment.
So the only grounds upon which he could intervene in the price policy of the industry in order to maintain full employment would be to try to shelter under the very narrow umbrella of the words "the national interest." We suggest that we should make it much stronger by including in the considerations which he has to bear in mind that of maintaining full employment in industry as a whole.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): We have had a fairly full and interesting debate on this most important matter. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who opened this debate in her usual charming and lucid fashion, erred slightly, I think, when she charged my right hon. Friend with not being really interested in full employment. She used some charming phrases about thistles and figs, but that was the burden of her complaint. I think it was a little unkind, for the hon. Lady will remember that, when she approached my right hon. Friend about eight months or so ago in connection with the rayon industry, she congratulated him and thanked him for the steps he took in trying to alleviate the unemployment in the rayon industry in her constitutency.
The hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) also made what I thought was quite an unfair accusation when he argued that my hon. Friends had been speaking as if they thought that full employment should not be taken into account in the development of the iron


and steel industry. If I can explain to the House what the first two Amendments do—I think the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) has satisfactorily explained what the last one does—we should be better able to follow the remarks which I am going to make in all modesty on this most important matter.
The first Amendment requires the Board, in deciding what development schemes should be excluded from their notice, to consider whether those development schemes would be unlikely substantially to affect the maintenance of full employment. That is a matter of importance, because it leads into the second Amendment, which empowers the Board to refuse to consent to a scheme if, in their opinion, it would seriously prejudice the maintenance of full employment, and it is on that Amendment particularly and on that interpretation of it that I will concentrate my remarks, but I shall refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North.

Mr. Mitchison: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me to intervene; I do not want him to get off on the wrong foot. The Board are bound to consent at present, unless they are satisfied
that the proposal will seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities….
So we may have a case of a proposal which will not seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development, but will seriously prejudice the maintenance of full employment, and the Board are bound to consent.

Mr. Low: I quite understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and I am going to deal with it in a moment, but perhaps he will allow me to develop my argument. Everybody in the Committee wants to see that suitable provision is made for full employment. Full employment is the Government's aim; let that be made quite clear. There has been much emotional talk, and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) spoke with feeling—as if many of us had some doubt about this matter. I assure him, and I think even I can do that, that we all have this matter at heart, but, after all, it is not the heart that produces Bills. It is the hand, with the aid of the head. that writes Bills and I think that, if we want to get the best out

of our discussion, we should try to look at this matter in a level-headed way.
6.0 p.m.
It is our opinion, having considered this matter, that these Amendments will not help to the end we all have in mind, which is full employment. Moreover, we feel that these Amendments might positively hinder the achievement of that end. I will explain why, but before doing so, I should like to remark that I noticed with some interest that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering attached importance to having the overriding authority of a Minister—and I suppose he would not mind having several Ministers—responsible to the House of Commons for full employment. In the course of his speech, he included distribution of industry questions on employment grounds. As he knows, there are Ministers—overriding authorities, if he prefers to call them that—responsible for those matters.

Mr. Mitchison: indicated assent.

Mr. Low: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade are obvious examples which the hon. Gentleman, who apparently agrees, must have in mind.
Now what about the position of the Board? Surely the Committee will agree that the best contribution the Iron and Steel Board can make to full employment is to be successful in helping the iron and steel industry to produce efficiently enough of all its products at prices that are competitive in world markets. That is surely the best contribution the Iron and Steel Board can make.

Mr. Mikardo: Surely it is not the only one the hon. Gentleman has got down there.

Mr. Low: I am choosing my words very carefully. The other day the hon. Gentleman chided me with reading, but I want to stick closely to notes about which I have thought very carefully.
The Committee will, I am sure, agree that expensive steel produced in the wrong place by uneconomic plant will do harm to the maintenance of full employment. The Board have power to veto any such major proposal without these Amendments. There is, of course, a much better safeguard in the fact that


no such proposal would ever be put forward in competitive conditions, but I do not need to go into that. Moreover, the other point that might lead eventually to interfering with the maintenance of full employment, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), the unbalance of capacity in times of inflated demand, is also covered by the Bill as at present drafted.
We believe that the addition of these words in subsection (3) would have a very different effect from that about which I have been talking. The Board would be empowered to refuse their consent to an economic proposal for a new plant which did not unbalance the industry, solely because in their opinion it prejudiced the maintenance of full employment. Whatever the hon. Member for Reading, South may say about the meaning of "full employment," and whatever I may think about the meaning of "full employment" in the context of general Government policy, I am doubtful whether we all agree about the meaning of the words "the maintenance of full employment" when added to subsection (3).
I listened very carefully to the speeches of the hon. Member for Flint, East and particularly of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling). The hon. Member for Hillsborough seemed to be arguing that the steel industry might hinder full employment by producing more steel, because he said that the insertion of these words had something to do with full employment in the engineering industry in making steam engines. These words are concerned with the powers of the Board to veto a development scheme, and I cannot see how the failure of the Board to veto a development scheme—in other words, the failure of the Board to stop somebody creating capacity to make more steel—can lead to unemployment in the engineering industry in the making of locomotives. Perhaps lie could explain that.

Mr. G. Darling: If I may say so, the Parliamentary Secretary is unfairly dealing with only the very narrow point. I was very careful to say that, in the context of all the proposed Amendments dealing with full employment, these are the views I wish to express. I agree that

if it is narrowed down to one specific part, particularly the subsection with which he is dealing, it is not as clear as I wanted to make it.

Mr. Low: I do not want to be unfair. I may err myself, and I quite see that this matter is of national importance. The general difficulties we have been in are proof of the case made by my hon. Friends—and it is my own case—that this is a matter we ought to consider more in the national context than in the context of the iron and steel industry only.

Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Gentleman consider this? Suppose Stewarts and Lloyds shut down a works outside Glasgow and moved to Corby, the Government are prevented from dealing directly with the shutting down outside Glasgow, although they know perfectly well that to allow an extension in Corby may mean unemployment in Glasgow. Surely that ought to be considered?

Mr. Low: I intend to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman about that. I wish he would wait. I speak quite quickly, and I am trying to get on point by point. I will deal with that, and, I hope, completely satisfy him. I was saying that I do not want to take an unfair point against the hon. Member for Hillsborough, but I still want to make that point.
There is no doubt that when dealing with full employment—or with unemployment, if hon. Members opposite would prefer it put like that—in the iron and steel industry we are bound to have in mind the effect of new developments. We have got one very much in our minds at the moment, namely, the effect of the Trostre development, about which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) knows a great deal. Far fewer men are needed in the new plant, than in the older ones to produce a larger quantity of tinplate. Technical advances of that kind have happened in the past and will happen again. Indeed, they must recur, I think we will all agree, if the United Kingdom is to live. Surely it is not suggested that the Board should delay advances of that kind?

Mr. Mikardo: Nobody did.

Mr. Low: I hope the hon. Gentleman will let me work out my argument.
If they did they would, in our opinion. be running a risk in the long-run of producing far greater and far wider unemployment through our industries, losing their competitive position in the world— not only the iron and steel industry but shipbuilding and the engineering industry, which is probably much more directly important to employment. I am glad we have got agreement on that, because it is a very relevant point.
Neither the Board nor the iron and steel industry can, by themselves, do all that can be done to alleviate or plan to avoid unemployment caused by technical advances. That is a problem for Government and for industry generally, and I am glad that that was the way in which this problem was dealt with by the late Government, since it is the way in which the problem at Trostre has been dealt with by this Government. I could read certain remarks by the former Secretary of State for Overseas Trade, the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), on this. The point I want to make is that these matters are for the Government and for industry generally: they are not matters for the iron and steel industry or any other industry in particular.

Mr. John Freeman: I think that the reason we are getting at cross purposes with the Parliamentary Secretary is that he asked us to let him take his speech point by point, but we find it difficult to know what those points are. He said that this Amendment, if accepted, would be not only otiose but possibly harmful. I do not agree with him, but he has tried to make that case. But will he explain what possible harm these words could do in any case?

Mr. Low: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not want to encourage the Board to veto proposals involving great technical advances merely because those proposals may temporarily, or perhaps more than temporarily, lead to a measure of unemployment. If the Amendment does not mean that the Board can do that, then I do not see what it does mean.

Mrs. White: Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address his mind to the instance which I put in my opening speech? Had the Board been looking at Trostre, or rather a forthcoming

Trostre, purely on the ground of the efficient production of steel, they would not have put the plant at Trostre. They would have kept the works at Margam. That is precisely the kind of situation in which we argue that even a decision within the steel industry itself about the production of steel should, nevertheless, be made with these other factors taken into account. I cannot see that anything that the Parliamentary Secretary has said really refutes my argument on that point.

Mr. Low: I see the hon. Lady's difficulty and that of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman). It is because I am not allowed to get on and develop all my points. If only I could, I would very soon come to that point.
The Trostre case is a good example. The location of the Trostre plant was changed after discussions between the steel industry and the Government. There is no dispute about that at all. It had nothing to do with nationalisation. It was altered by agreement, without the use by the Government of any of the powers which they possessed. But in fact—and this is a point which is relevant to the interruption by the hon. Member for Watford—the Government had powers then and still have powers to approve the location of industry under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The industrial development certificate procedure which is operated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade takes account of these matters, and without the words of the Amendment in the Bill at all, these matters can be and, in our submission, would be looked after.
The hon. Member for Reading, South appears to be shaking his head. He may think, as a matter of opinion, that that will not happen.

Mr. Mikardo: No it was not that.

Mr. Low: Please let me finish my sentence. It is much better, in our view, that the distribution of industry should be dealt with from a national point of view. I believe it was the hon. Member for Hillsborough who accused us of running away from the White Paper. I suggest that he is either running away from the White Paper on Employment Policy or has forgotten what is written in it.


The following words occur in paragraph 30 of the White Paper, relating to Government Departments, and I will explain how they are relevant to this point:
No single Department could conveniently undertake the responsibility for formulating and administering the policy for the distribution of industry outlined in the foregoing paragraphs. This is essentially a policy of the Government as a whole, and its application in practice will involve action by a number of different Departments, each of which will adapt its administration to conform with the general policy.
Later on it is stated that there should be a single channel through which Government policy on distribution of industry can be expressed. If that is true of any single Government Department, how much more true it must be of any single industry or any single board.

Mr. G. Darling: That would have been germane if I had been talking about the location of steel plants, but I was not. I was talking about something entirely different.

Mr. Low: I am sorry. I did not want to annoy the hon. Member, but he gave me an opening and he accused us of forgetting the White Paper. I am glad now that he should have been reminded of one important principle stated in the White Paper, which I think is extremely relevant to what we are discussing at the moment.

Mr. Darling: Yes, but not relevant to what I was saying.

Mr. Low: I am afraid that the hon. Member is not making the speech at the moment.

6.15 p.m.

Before I was interrupted, I wanted to take further the point about the definition of full employment. The hon. Member for Reading, South gave us a definition, which I think is in conflict with that given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). However, I do not think that this is the only occasion on which the hon. Member has been in conflict with his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jack Jones: Nor the last.

Mr. Low: I gather that it will not be the last. The point is whether the Board are likely to be able to make decisions

about important matters relating to the maintenance of full employment generally. I think that it was said by the hon. Member for Reading, South—and I agree with him on this—that when we talk about the maintenance of full employment we are referring not to a particular industry nor to a sector of an industry but to industry generally. And surely my hon. Friends are right when they say that this is a matter which comes within Government responsibility. Two weeks ago we debated and rejected an Amendment to give the Board a general public or national interest and responsibility in matters which are within the duties of the Government and about which the Government and not the Board have full knowledge. The maintenance of full employment is one aspect of the Government's general economic responsibility.

Mr. Lee: The Government have no power.

Mr. Low: If the hon. Member says that, he must have forgotten those valuable years which he spent as a member of his Government. The Government, of course, have plenty of power and, so far as I am aware, the Government will not lose any of their present powers because of this Bill. The Government's economic policy attempts to create a balance of the internal economy, but full employment may be threatened by fluctuation in external demand. The effect of that can only be dealt with by the Government by international action, and international co-operation, and that is not a matter in which the Iron and Steel Board could help.

Mr. Mitchison: With great respect, does the hon. Gentleman remember what his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply said the other day with regard to this:
…I can assure the Committee it is our firm intention that the Board shall be closely and responsibly associated with the decisions taken on the policy to be adopted by our delegation at Luxembourg."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1283.]
If that is not international, what is?

Mr. Low: Of course it is, and I well remember that point. If the hon. and learned Member is trying to drive a wedge between my right hon. Friend and myself, I would remind him that on my right hon. Friend's instructions I have


made that point before. The hon. and learned Member is either making a pure debating point, or is trying to deal with two separate issues.
Speeches made from the other side of the Committee have expressed the idea that control over a particular industry may help to solve unemployment.

Mr. Mikardo: Hear, hear.

Mr. Low: I notice that with interest. I had thought—and I have been reading quite a lot of the writings of hon. Members opposite—that that was an old-fashioned idea now, that it was now generally accepted that the way to deal with the problem is through general economic policy. In fact the hon. Member for Reading, South implied as much, although he said—

Mr. Mikardo: rose

Mr. Low: I think we had better leave that—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Mikardo: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way now, as he has not given away to me before. I know he has had great difficulties in making his speech, but he would find it easier to reply to the points we made if he did not take so much time replying to points we did not make. He has diametrically misquoted what I said on the maintenance of full employment, which should be a tripartite policy of the Government, the industry and the region.

Mr. Low: If the hon. Member had heard the sentence I was just beginning, he would know that I began by saying, "Although the hon. Member said" and that I am not intending to misquote him —[Interruption.]—I am a little disturbed by the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams)—

Mr. W. R. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has been sticking very well to his brief irrespective of the fact that he is seeking to reply to the points raised.

Mr. Low: If the hon. Member had a look at the brief, he would find that it is written all over in various coloured inks.
I have said enough. I think, to show the Committee why we are asking them to resist these Amendments. I should like

to end on this note, and I hope we can come back to the serious vein in which this debate was begun and in which I tried to begin my speech. In our opinion the Board, with its knowledge of conditions in the industry and the wider knowledge of its members who, let us remember, are to be drawn from both sides of the industry, from the consuming industries and from outside industry, will of course draw the attention of the Government, whether in their annual report or on other occasions, to fluctuations in employment caused, or likely to be caused, by developments in the industry. I have no doubt that the Board and the industry will be every bit as anxious as is this Committee to assist as much as possible in finding alternative work for men who become redundant through technical advances and in carrying forward the policy of the Government on full employment.
If the Board will do that, and more particularly if the supervision of the Board results in the industry keeping costs down and production up in a competitive world, it will have made a real contribution to full employment. On the other points which have been made in this debate, which has covered the ground very fully, I can assure hon. Members that the Government have the powers and the intention, as have all hon. Members in the Committee, to see that there is full employment. For these reasons, I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: This debate has been one of the most important—possibly the most important—we have had since we entered the Committee stage. It has touched on fundamentals and we have discussed a problem which may intimately affect the livelihood of a large section of the population. We wanted to explore the attitude of the Government on the proposal we put forward and we now know their answer.
The case has been so well put from my side of the Committee in a number of admirable, and I thought unanswerable and conclusive, speeches that I do not propose to prolong the time the Committee spend on this matter by going over the points again. I would point out, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary, in attempting to answer my hon. Friends, devoted most of his time to answering a case which had never been put at all. I


sympathise with him in his difficulty. He had such a formidable case put against him by my hon. Friends that he had no alternative but to sit down and say nothing or to answer a case which was not put. I sympathise with him in all the trouble he had with the different pens and pencils with which he went over his notes again in order to find something coherent and effective in answer to the case put to the Committee.
I wish to summarise the situation as we see it. We say that this Board is one which, in the view of the Government at least, is to carry out important functions. Two of its important functions will be the determination of maximum prices in the industry and deciding when and where developments are to take place. We say that both these functions may affect employment on occasions and may cause unemployment if wrong decisions are made.
I do not think anyone denies that the level of prices fixed for iron and steel products may affect employment in this country. It may affect our exports and affect employment generally. Do hon. Members opposite really say that the price of basic commodities such as iron and steel shall have no effect on employment in this country? Surely no one on the benches opposite would argue that; surely we agree that it is possible to lose export markets because the basic price of iron and steel is fixed so high that our competitors get into the market in our place. Surely that may well affect employment in various industries. Iron and steel is a basic industry on which so much depends.
I should think no one would deny that the decision whether to permit certain developments in the industry—I am not talking now of location, that is another point—where they are to be permitted, and when they are to be permitted, is a question which, again, may have an effect on employment. It may have an effect on employment locally and it may have an effect on employment nationally. If, for example, it is decided that too much, or too little, development is to be permitted, or the industry is unbalanced, or is balanced, all these things will affect employment nationally. Quite obviously local employment must be affected also by the decisions of the Board.
No one suggested that this employment question should be decisive and that the Board should exclude everything else from their minds. We have never said that, but the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary and other hon. Members was that we were proposing that some development scheme, which on merit is first class and desirable, should be vetoed because it may cause temporary unemployment somewhere. We have never suggested anything of the sort.
We ask that this Board, which has to make important decisions which may affect employment in many parts of the country, should be permitted to take into account that factor before coming to a decision. They should have in their minds the effect which such decisions would have on employment. The Government's answer is that they should not have that consideration in mind at all. We look on that as a monstrous decision on the part of the Government. We say that this should not be the over-riding consideration but one which it would be right for them to have in mind. But the Parliamentary Secretary says that they are not to have it in mind—

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman should keep to the Amendment. I have tried to answer the points made in the debate on the Amendment and not on the general desirability of full employment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not misconstrue what I have said.

Mr. Strauss: I am talking on the Amendment, and I thought the Parliamentary Secretary was. The Amendment seeks to ensure that the Board should have the maintenance of full employment in mind when deciding questions of prices and development. That is what is referred to in this Amendment. The Government say, "We reject the Amendment. The Board shall not have in mind full employment." We think it is a monstrous and a highly regrettable decision.

Mr. Low: Owing to the many interruptions, I did not deal very fully with the question of prices; but the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) pointed out that the words "national interest" already appear in the Clause dealing with the Minister's power over prices. Surely the right hon. Gentleman


is not going to argue that the national interest does not include the maintenance of full employment? That would be going much too far.

Mr. Strauss: The provision in the Bill in relation to prices is ridiculous. Both the Board and the Minister have powers in this connection. The Board have powers to fix prices, and by this Amendment we seek to ensure that when the Board are fixing prices they shall have in mind the question of full employment. The Government say, "No; when the Board fix prices they must not have full employment in mind." We are not surprised by the decision of the Government, but we regret it.
If this Board is set up, we want it to be a proper Board. We want the Board to have in mind not only the welfare of the steel industry and those who work in it, but the consequences, on a wider scale. of any decision they may make. The Government go on saying that the powers of the Board should be restricted to the narrow interests of the steel industry, and not to the public or national interests. When we say that the Government should direct the Board in this matter, we are told that the Government shall have no powers of supervision over the Board.

Mr. Spencer Summers: The right hon. Gentleman is completely ignoring the fact that in many directions the Government have power, through other agencies, to achieve the required results.

Mr. Strauss: I agree that the Parliamentary Secretary made a good point when he said that the establishment of a big development scheme in some new area would come under Government regulation, because that is already provided for under the Distribution of Industry Act. That is perfectly true and it is an effective point; but that deals only with a very small part of this Amendment. All developments do not take place in new localities. They may take the form of the rebuilding or extension of existing works. In that case the power of the Government would not come into operation. It is only when some new development is proposed in a new location that the Government's powers become operative. It may be that there will be a big development scheme where the Government's powers do not become

operative. That is why we feel very keenly about this Amendment.
In the interests of those who work in the steel industry, and for the prosperity of the country generally, we say that this factor should be permitted to be in the minds of the Board when they make decisions on these important matters. The Government think otherwise. I am sure that workers both in the steel industry and outside will note and will very much resent the decisions which have been taken and announced to the Committee tonight. We shall divide the Committee on this Amendment, and I hope that some hon. Members opposite will support us on this occasion.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I cannot allow the debate on this Amendment to end in this way. There are two aspects of the organisation, control and supervision of the steel industry which might affect employment. One is the fixing of prices and the other is development.
On the question of prices, as my hon. Friend has made quite clear—and as all hon. Members who are familiar with the Bill well know—the Government have power, under Clause 8, to over-ride the Board in the national interest and to fix such prices as they think right. I do not imagine that will happen often, but nobody can say that the Government— which, in our opinion, is the proper body to consider what is or is not in the national interest—has no power to intervene.
Nobody is going to suggest that consideration of full employment should not be taken into account in any decisions which the Government may take in interpretating the words "national interest." We do not think it is a good thing to try to define all the different aspects of the national interest; we would have a new Schedule to the Bill, setting out all the circumstances which might in certain eventualities, lead the Government to intervene in the national interest.

Mr. Strauss: What the right hon. Gentleman says is quite correct. I was dealing with the Board's powers in Clause 7. But even in Clause 8 the right hon. Gentleman can intervene only where the national interest is concerned. My case is that a very serious fall in employment may occur nationally or


locally. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—as I do from my experience at the Ministry—that, although the Minister is empowered to intervene in a general or national matter, he is precluded from intervening in some local or special matter. Therefore, he would be quite unable, even if he wanted to do so, to intervene in the case of local unemployment caused by any price fixing by the Board.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman is stretching his point unreasonably. We consider that the avoidance of unemployment, whether locally or on a wider scale, is of national interest. I should not have thought hon. Members opposite differed from us on that.

Mr. Strauss: I am advised that the word "national" is as I defined it, and the right hon. Gentleman will be powerless in the circumstances I have described. Will he at least undertake to look into the matter before we reach Clause 8 to see whether some drastic Amendment is not required with regard to the word "national"?

Mr. Sandys: I should not think that the word "national" needs to be defined. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it is not the business of the Government to intervene or to take any hand in a local unemployment problem. We do not need to go beyond the steel industry, or to go further back than a few weeks, to see that the Government have intervened and are now doing what they can to deal with the problem of local unemployment consequential on the construction of the new tinplate works at Trostre, in South Wales. In the debate on Welsh affairs a few days ago, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced measures which the Government were taking in this connection, and said that consultations were proceeding with local interests in order to deal with the kind of problem to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
I now come to the question of development. We do not complain that hon. Members opposite have used this comparatively confined Amendment to stage a general debate on full employment. I rather expected it. However, we felt that the right thing for us was to deal with the Amendments on the Paper, as is the normal procedure during the Committee

stage of a Bill. We do not complain that the debate has ranged over the whole field of full employment. Experience between the wars and many other things were discussed in one way or another during the speeches that have been made.
I come now to the question of what would be the effect of adding these words to the Clause which deals solely with the Board's power to veto schemes and to prevent expansion. Therefore, it does not seem to me that hon. Members opposite are making a very strong point when they say that it would be highly dangerous if the Board did not take fully into account the problem of unemployment and, as a result, failed to veto some expansion scheme. That is all that could result from not putting these words into the Bill.

Mr. J. Freeman: May I put this to the Minister, because I think he is wrong? The Clause allows the Board to do two things: first, to call for particulars in writing of expansions and, as the Minister conceded to us last night, of contractions of capacity. Second, it allows the Board to veto expansions. Subsection (2), as I read it, exempts from the obligation to furnish particulars anybody who has a scheme which
would be unlikely substantially to affect the efficient and economic development of production facilities,
even if it affected full employment. That is the effect of the Minister's refusing the Amendment to subsection (2).

Mr. Sandys: I think that the hon. Member has misread it. Another Clause is designed to provide general information for the Board. Clause 4 enables the Board to discuss the planning of the development in the industry. The present Clause is concerned purely and simply with the prevention of undesirable developments. Therefore, unless the hon. Member wishes to twist the whole purpose of one of the subsections, the only object of arranging for the submission of schemes to the Board, is for them to be able to decide whether to exercise their power of veto. It is not the purpose of this Clause to provide the Board with general information which they may require for this or for any other purpose.

Mr. Freeman: May I put this to the Minister? It is a serious point. I moved


an Amendment last night to make an insertion which would make the Clause apply to contraction of capacity as well as to expansion. After the debate, the Minister said that he was prepared to accept from us that, so far as concerned the power of calling for particulars in writing of such proposals, it would apply to contraction of capacity as well as to expansion. The right hon. Gentleman made us that concession last night. At present, a firm which submits a scheme, which may be justified economically but which would impair full employment, is not obliged to submit particulars in writing to the Board. If the Minister does not mean what he said last night, let him say so now.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: What I said was that I recognised it was desirable, although I thought it was probably unnecessary, to include an Amendment of this kind, and that if hon. Members wished it to be put in black and white in the Bill, I was prepared to see whether we could insert a provision to ensure that firms would notify the Board if they were contemplating closing their works. I did not specify, and I do not think that any great importance should be attached to my not doing so, that the right place was necessarily in this Clause. The important thing, as I understood the debate last night, was that there should be some provision that the Board should be warned well in advance that a firm was contemplating closing down.
I question whether this Clause is the best place to put it, because its only purpose is to enable the Board to veto expansion or development schemes. I explained last night that we did not feel able to accept the proposal that the Board should have the power to veto a closure and that it would, therefore, be more appropriate to include the provision for notification in some other part of the Bill. I do not think that there is any difference between us on that.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and, of course, we accept it from him if he says that it is better to put it elsewhere. But will he give us an undertaking that if he does so, no firm will be able to be exempted from the duty of giving notice

if it is impairing full employment by its action, whatever may be the economic merits of the action?

Mr. Sandys: I do not quite understand.

Mr. Freeman: If the Minister gives that undertaking, we shall be happy. Wherever he makes an addition to the Bill to give us the concession which he made last night, will he undertake that the firm concerned shall not be exempted from giving notice in writing to the Board where its action is likely to impair full employment, even if it is able to justify its action on economic and productive grounds?

Mr. Sandys: I should not like to try to define exactly how it should be phrased. I am sure that there is no difference between us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes, there is."] I am out of order in discussing an Amendment which was debated last night, but if the Chair will allow me I would explain that the main purpose of notification is that the Board may be aware of two things. One is that there will be a reduction in the output of the industry, and the other is that there may be unemployment as a result. Those are the two things, and it is my intention to see that this provision, wherever it is put in the Bill, should take account of them.
I was dealing with the desirability or not of including in this Clause a reference to full employment. I did not quite understand the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). At one moment he said that he was not concerned with the problem of the location of industry, and yet he said that what mattered was that the employment position should be taken into account in deciding when and where a new development was to be undertaken. Of course, "where" means location, and that seemed to me to be an important point. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am sorry, it was my fault. I agreed that the location of industry and the setting up of a new plant in green fields or somewhere else would be a matter over which the Government have authority. Nevertheless, there might be some new development taking place where the Government had no authority—no new location was


involved—but there might be a considerable local effect on employment. That is the sort of thing which the Board should take into account.

Mr. Sandys: What has the right hon. Gentleman in mind? [HON. MEMBERS: "Expansion of steel works."] Yes, but an expansion of works generally leads to increased employment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—unless it involves a great modernisation, such as Trostre.

Mr. Strauss: I am only trying to make more clear the sort of thing I have in mind. There may be applications before the Board from two or three concerns for development of the same sort—expansion of works. The Board has to consider which of these it should veto and which permit. That is the sort of work it will do, I imagine. There may be no question of moving any works anywhere. The Board, in deciding which of these developments should be permitted and which should not, ought to have in mind the result on employment in the locality.

Mr. Sandys: I have no doubt the Board will, in general, have these matters in mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As I have already said, the worst that could happen as a result of not inserting these words—and there are, in my opinion, objections to putting them in which have been made very plain by my hon. Friend—is that the Board would not veto some development scheme. It is very hard to see how extensive local unemployment could be caused by a new works which was, perhaps, not necessary being built in a particular area. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about others?"] I was answering the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to one particular area.
The point I now want to make is that, by putting these words into Clause 5, we add nothing whatsoever to the powers which the Government already possess in regard to the location of industry. But I do hope that hon. Members opposite will not use this discussion on this very narrow Amendment to try to make out that because we consider it undesirable in this particular context to introduce the phrase "full employment," we want mass unemployment in this country. That is not the case.
Our objection—and this is the reason upon which I stand—to including these

words is not that we are against full employment—I do not think we need argue that—our objection is, that by inserting these words we are saying to the Board, "These are the factors and considerations which should decide you to veto a particular scheme." [Interruption.] Certainly. In subsection (3) we set out the circumstances—

Mr. Mitchison: No.

Mr. Sandys: —in which the Board may veto a scheme. What subsection (3) says in effect is that the Board should not veto a scheme:
unless…the proposal will seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities.
If the Board ignores that, it will obviously not be doing its job. By putting these words in, we are in fact giving a directive to the Board, saying that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, we expect it to use its power of veto to prevent schemes which would seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities. By adding "or the maintenance of full employment" we are saying to the Board that, if the erection of some new plant would prejudice full employment in that area, it should veto that scheme unless there are exceptional circumstances.
We have all been talking about Trostre today. This is the supreme example of the case. Suppose that scheme had come before the Board and the Clause had been amended as hon. Gentlemen opposite are saying it should be. The Board, in considering the scheme, would have seen that one of the reasons Parliament had said it should consider as valid for vetoing a scheme should be whether it would prejudice full employment. If there is a supreme example of a scheme which is resulting in a reduction—a wholesale reduction—of employment in the steel industry in a particular area, and in an area where employment in other, alternative trades is exceedingly difficult, it is the Trostre tinplate scheme.
Yet everybody, in every part of the Committee, who has taken part in this debate and mentioned Trostre—and it has been mentioned by very many hon. Members—has said that, despite the employment difficulty, it was right and proper. wise and far-sighted for the late Government—and we pay our tribute to them for it—to approve this scheme, although


it has involved and is going to involve yet more unemployment in that area, because in the long run it is necessary and desirable for the health and prosperity of the British steel industry.

Mrs. White: The example the right hon. Gentleman should really take is Margam, including the cold production plant. The point about Trostre is this. There is bound to be some unemployment if we have a modern plant, but the whole argument we are putting forward is that the Board should exercise the kind of judgment which was exercised when it was said, "We will not have an entirely integrated plant at Margam, which would be the technically correct thing, but we will put part of it at Trostre, for there will be less unemployment if we put part of it at Trostre."

Mr. Sandys: We are talking now about the location of industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—which, as my hon. Friend has explained very well, has to take account of employment considerations. The change of site was agreed to by voluntary agreement between the Government and the industry. But the Government have, of course, powers over the location of industry.

Mr. Mitchison: rose—

Mr. Sandys: I do not want to prolong the debate. I hope I have made it clear that our attitude towards this extremely narrow Amendment has nothing to do with our policy towards full employment. We on this side of the Committee and the party opposite, when we all sat in the same Government at the end of the war, drew up a White Paper on Full Employment, and our attitude towards it remains the same.
All we are saying is that we consider that the addition of these words in this veto Clause will not contribute towards full employment and might seriously prejudice the Board's decisions on development in the iron and steel industry. Full employment—which we wish to see maintained as much as anybody in the party opposite—is a national responsibility, and not that either of a locality or an industry. If action needs to be taken in regard to full employment, the appropriate place to take it is not in a veto Clause in the Iron and Steel Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 243.

Division No. 89.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Adams, Richard
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Albu, A. H.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Crossman, R. H. S
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hale, Leslie


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Daines, P.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Awbery, S. S.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, John T, (Gateshead, W.)


Baird, J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, W. W


Balfour, A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hannan, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hargreaves, A.


Bartley, P.
Deer, G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bence, C. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Hastings, S.


Benn, Wedgwood
Dodds, N. N.
Hayman, F. H.


Benson, G.
Donnelly, D. L.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Beswick, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
Herbison, Miss M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hewitson, Capt M


Blackburn, F.
Edelman, M.
Hobson, C. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Holman, P.


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Houghton, Douglas


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Bowden, H. W.
Evans, Edwards (Lowestoft)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brockway, A. F.
Ewart, R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fienburgh, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Finch, H. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Follick, M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Foot, M. M.
Janner, B.


Callaghan, L. J.
Forman, J. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Carmichael, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jegar, George (Goole)


Champion, A. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Chapman, W. D.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Clunie, J.
Glanville, James
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Coldrick, W.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Collick, P. H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)




Keenan, W.
Orbach, M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Kenyon, C.
Oswald, T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Padley, W. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


King, Dr. H. M.
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Kinley, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pannell, Charles
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Lewis, Arthur
Paton, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lindgren, G. S.
Pearson, A.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


MacColl, J. E.
Popplewell, E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McGovern, J.
Porter, G.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McInnes, J.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Tomney, F.


McLeavy, F.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Pryde, D. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Viant, S. P.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reeves, J.
Weitzman, D.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
West, D. G.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Manuel, A. C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mayhew, C. P.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Messer, F.
Short, E. W.
Wigg, George


Mikardo, Ian
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Morley, R.
Slater, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyten)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mort, D. L.
Snow, J. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Yates, V. F.


Mulley, F. W
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Murray, J. D.
Sparks, J. A.



Nally, W.
Steele, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Mr. J. Johnson and Mr. Wilkins.


Oliver, G. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Carson, Hon. E.
Gough, C. F. H.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Gower, H. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cole, Norman
Grimond, J.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Colegate, W. A
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Arbuthnot, John
Cooper, Sqn, Ldr. Albert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crouch, R. F.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Banks, Col. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Barber, Anthony
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hay, John


Barlow, Sir John
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Heald, Sir Lionel


Baxter, A. B.
Davidson, Viscountess
Heath, Edward


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holland-Martin, C. J


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Holt, A. F.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drayson, G. B.
Hope, Lord John


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Drewe, C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Birch, Nigel
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bishop, F. P.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Black, C. W.
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Hurd, A. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Erroll, F. J.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fell, A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Braine, B. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fort, R.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Foster, John
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kaberry, D.


Bullard, D. G.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bullock, Capt. M.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lambton, Viscount


Butcher, Sir Herbert
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Campbell, Sir David
Godber, J. B.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Carr, Robert
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.







Leather, E. H. C.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Snadden, W. McN.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Nugent, G. R. H
Spearman, A. C. M.


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Odey, G. W.
Speir, R. M


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Linstead, H. N.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stevens, G. P.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Storey, S.


Longden, Gilbert
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Low, A. R. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Summers, G. S.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth. S.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Teeling, W.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Payton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


McAdden, S. J.
Powell, J. Enoch
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Tilney, John


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Turner, H. F. L.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Profumo, J. D.
Turton, R. H.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Raikes, Sir Victor
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maclean, Fitzroy
Rayner, Brig. R.
Vosper, D. F.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.
Wade, D. W.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Robertson, Sir David
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Markham, Major S. F.
Robson Brown, W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Waterhouse, Cap. Rt. Hon. C.


Marples, A. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Watkinson, H. A.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Russell, R. S.
Wellwood, W


Mellor, Sir John
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Molson, A. H. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Williams, F. Dudley (Exeter)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Scott, R. Donald
Wills, G.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nicholis, Harmar
Shepherd, William
Wood, Hon. R.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)



Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Major Conant and Mr. Redmayne.

Mr. Jack Jones: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in considering as aforesaid whether the effect of a proposal is likely to be substantial the Board shall have regard not only to the proposal itself but to its effect in conjunction with any other similar or other relevant proposals which may have been made or which in the opinion of the Board are likely to be made.
We have had this afternoon a prolonged, very healthy and, towards the end, a rather hectic debate, and, if I may be allowed to digress for a second, it runs through my mind that never has one Member of this House stood so long, said so little and suffered so much because of lack of a plan to get full employment in the industry. But that is beside the point.
This Amendment seeks to add what we consider to be a useful contribution to the Clause. We consider that the Board should have the power, and we hope by the addition of this Amendment to make certain that it takes into account the many circumstances which we consider to be relevant, in addition to that of full employment.
We have in mind that the Board will be receiving applications from varying per-

sons and varying organisations once the new set-up gets into its stride, and we are not unmindful of the fact that the persons most likely to make application will be those persons who will seek to add to their existing facilities. We want to be very careful to see that, as a result of such applications being granted, the circumstances which will arise will not have a serious effect on other companies.
I make no bones about it when I say that we realise, as I think the Committee realises, that there will be for some considerable time two sections in this industry, one which will be reasonably easy to sell—lucrative, productive, modern, efficient plants—and one which will not be so easy to dispose of, if ever disposed of under private enterprise.
We are anxious to see that, arising from the extension or expansion of any one organisation, all the factors and effects upon the less fortunate parts of the industry will be taken into consideration, including, for instance, on the technical side, considerations arising out of the allocation of raw materials. It would be useless and hopeless to give an existing privately-owned concern the right to extend or expand without, at the same time, guaranteeing that it will have


the raw materials with which to work to the fullest capacity.
We are anxious to see that in such circumstances the raw materials so diverted will not be of such a magnitude as to affect the less fortunate companies still under the ownership of the Agency. I can see, even if the whole Committee cannot, because I am a very suspicious sort of fellow in these matters, that in two or three years' time, if we are spared to live so long, the argument arising, "Look how well the private section has done and look how badly the half-starved publicly-owned section has done." We are anxious to see that everyone gets a fair allocation and a fair opportunity.
I do not want to dwell too long on the technical aspects, although they are important. There are people in this Committee who seem to have as their aim the development of existing plant, and the idea that the way to increase efficiency is to increase the existing efficient plant. There is a point beyond which we can go no further in that regard. I am one of those who believe that even in the steel industry one particular plant under one direction can become too large for the national interest. There are other matters to be considered in that connection.
There is, of course, the question of finance. I am not well-versed in financial matters. It took me all my time, with the help of my good wife, to make one week's pay packet serve one week's needs, and we had to be magicians to do that. I have never entered into the realms of high finance. There will, however, be questions of national expenditure, the borrowing of capital, and the things that affect substantial increases in capacity. I do not, however, want to go too far into the sociological side of this matter. That point was pretty well covered during the debate on the last Amendment.
7.15 p.m.
There are other matters the Committee should consider which have not been mentioned up to now. I have taken part in every steel debate since we first talked about nationalisation and de-nationalisation—and there are several matters to which we think the Board ought to pay some regard. There is, for instance, the question of the strategic location of the

industry. I do not want to be accused of being unduly pessimistic or of being an alarmist, but I think that the Board, in dealing with these potential applications which I have in mind, and to which I will refer later, should pay considerable regard to the question of the strategic location of industry.
I have not in mind the demands for expansion and extension which will come from the people who are unduly interested in the present type of production. I believe that the present type of production and the present plant for the expansion of the present type of production is well covered, but there are the new forms of steel—nimonics, new alloys, the steel required for the equipment of jet, radar and so on. There is also the question of the amount of steel which will be needed for use in the atomic age. All these things will be of vital importance, and the allocation of new plant to produce these newer forms of steel should be taken into account by the Board.
I can see that the Board may have half a dozen applications before them of the same nature at the same time. They will have the problem of deciding which application shall be granted and which vetoed. We are very anxious that the Board should by the introduction of this Amendment have these matters kept in their minds. We do not pay the same fundamental regard to this Amendment as to the last one, but we want this Amendment introduced so that the Board shall have regard not only to their duties in relation to one specific company or large organisation, which may have good friends at court and be represented on the Board, but to all the relevant factors relating to the fate of those persons who are not making applications.
This is an Amendment which does not seek to create a split in the Committee, even to the extent of a vote. I do not think that we should want to pursue this matter into the Lobbies. It is, however, an Amendment which we feel to be a practicable one. It is not one which is based on emotions and the history of the past, or on the vices which sprang up between the wars, but it is, we hope, one based on the virtues of what will happen in the future.
We ask the Minister to give the matter serious consideration. He will probably


tell us that the Board consists of the wisest men who have ever foregathered under one roof and that, although it is not laid down specifically in the Bill, they will take into account all the things which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier. I emphasise that we are anxious about the effect that any decision which is made or is not made will have upon the global steel situation. We are asking for something which we believe to be reasonable, practicable and workable and which will, in the long-term be of advantage if it is included in the Bill. On those grounds, and in a spirit of cool, calm reasonableness, not having been at all excited by what has happened in the past—much water has gone under the bridge and it cannot be brought back—I hope the Minister will grant this concession.

Mr. Summers: When I saw the many pages of Amendments to the Bill, I wondered how many were likely to be taken to the Division Lobby. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) for indicating that the prospect of their being taken to the Division Lobby is directly proportional to their emotional content, and I welcome his suggestion that there is no need for any emotion.
I hope to show that, whatever merit there may be in the idea of giving the Board the duty of considering the cumulative effect of a series of changes, the Amendment completely fails to give effect to that idea. It begins with the words:
Provided that in considering as aforesaid …
Those words are to be inserted at the end of subsection (2) and so they must refer to the preceding subsections, but those subsections are concerned solely with the conditions which the Board will impose upon the industry for notifying plans which the Board might wish to consider.

Mr. Jack Jones: The hon. Gentleman has misread the Bill. Subsection (2) reads:
… no person will be required by the notice to give to the Board particulars of any proposal which, by reason of the limited size or cost of the proposed additional production facilities or the class of products concerned or other relevant factors, would be unlikely substantially to affect the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain.

It relates to matters which are not required to be notified.

Mr. Summers: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having taken the trouble to read me the relevant passage, but I have it in front of me. It deals with the circumstances which the Board will expect to have notified to it. It is not concerned with the consideration which the Board will give to the information when it has it. The Amendment seeks to instruct the Board how it shall consider development plans which are submitted to it. The subsections to which I am referring have not reached the stage when the Board is considering the merits of development plans and are concerned only to define the nature of the development plans which the Board thinks it is wise to have submitted to it. For that reason, if there is any merit in the idea of the Board considering the cumulative effect, this is not the place in which to insert words with that object.
My second objection to the Amendment is that it asks companies which are making changes in their plans to report them to the Board if there are other relevant proposals which might affect consideration of them. The Amendment seeks to instruct companies to take into account possibilities of future comparable developments when deciding whether they ought or ought not to notify the Board of their plans. There is great confusion in the minds of those who put down the Amendment. I see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) taking a keen interest in what I am saying. I dare say I shall induce him to rise, but I hope not, because we want to get on.
As drawn, the Amendment is concerned solely with what shall be the obligation of individual companies in reporting to the Board and is not directly related to the consideration of those plans which should be given by the Board itself. I cannot believe that a Board instructed to consider these matters in relation to the efficient and economical development of production facilities would consider each case in isolation from any other plans of very much the same kind which were put to it. Any responsible body of opinion dealing with the merits of a certain plan is obliged to consider not merely how


the plan will affect the general efficiency and set-up of the industry but also what its effect will be having regard to such developments as are known to be taking place at the time when that consideration is being given. It is unnecessary to lay down that account shall be taken of the cumulative effect of development plans, and, in addition, the Amendment does not achieve what the hon. Member for Rotherham has in mind.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), but, though he had the Bill in front of him, I am not certain whether he had read it. He was getting fairly near the mark, but he did not state the case quite rightly. It is clear that the object of subsection (2) as it stands is to enable the Board to dispense with particulars of proposals where the particulars relate only to small matters. The definition of matters about which particulars need not be given is proposals which:
… would be unlikely substantially to affect the efficient and economic development of production facilities….
What we have to consider is what the Board can reasonably, after consultation, dispense with in the way of particulars from iron and steel producing companies.
At present there is some doubt whether the Board can look beyond the proposal which comes before it. It seems that when the Board comes to consider its requirements from the companies it has to look at the matter item by item. To give a very simple instance, any hon. Member who has ever had to convey a piece of property will know that the Stamp Duty Commissioners require a certificate that it is not part of a series of transactions amounting to a larger sum which would attract a higher rate of duty. That is a reasonable requirement in those circumstances. Similarly, no one would really wish companies to be able to get out of a limitation of amount by doing what they propose to do in a series of proposals instead of a single proposal.

Mr. Summers: The hon. and learned Gentleman is merely confirming the point I made, that we are here dealing with the instructions to companies. He is trying to argue that, as a result of this provision, a company will be required to take into

account the development plans of a whole series of other companies, of which it may have no knowledge, in deciding whether or not it escapes the provisions of the Act.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member spoke a little too soon. I have not tried to argue anything, only to explain this Amendment, and I am giving one instance. I did not understand the hon. Member to disagree with me in that. At any rate he has not said so, and I could not conceive so reasonable a person as he appears to be disagreeing on a matter of that sort. Nor do I think the Minister disagrees.
Let me give a case in point. I cannot deal in the astronomical figures peculiar to undertakings in Sheffield. I must take some more modest ones. Supposing a company promotes a scheme to spend £100,000 and the Board say, "You need not give us any particulars about anything that is less than £50,000," then this situation can arise. That company could put forward the first instalment of the scheme at £30,000, then one for £40,000 and another one for £30,000. They could technically keep themselves within the requirements of the Board in the matter. That might raise all sorts of difficult questions, such as whether they have or have not dealt with the requirements of this Clause.
All I am saying is that the Board have to consider the substantial effect, and they should take into account all similar proposals or relevant proposals. We on this side of the Committee have not got any Parliamentary draftsmen to help us in drafting our Amendments. Therefore, if the Minister or his hon. Friends think that this Amendment goes too far, we should be told what the Government will provide for the sort of contingency we have in mind, and how they propose to find appropriate language to do so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said, this is not an emotional Amendment. It is not a very major matter. We are simply trying to provide for the Board being able to consider a proposition as a whole irrespective of the number of proposals that come in. We also want to provide for one other matter, which I think the Board is bound to consider—it appears very doubtful whether it can do so as the


Clause at present stands. It is this sort of point. Supposing these particular proposals are so closely tied up with others that between them they have a substantial effect but it is rather hard to see which of them has the substantial effect, then we say the Board ought to be able to consider them.
I hope I am not going too far, but I feel personally that this is a matter of some importance. One wants to be clear about it. We think there should he opportunity to consider what, in fact, is substantial, and we want to see that reached by considering all the relevant factors.

Mr. Summers: The hon. and learned Member has referred to the case of a company having two or three projects and the possibility of deciding which has the substantial effect. Will he pay regard also to the fact that a company under his idea will have to pay attention to the relevant developments of other companies? That is a point of which he is taking no account whatever.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member has got it a little wrong. I think it is the Board which has got to consider these things and not a company.

Mr. Summers: It is the company in deciding the substantial effect.

Mr. Mitchison: I hope we shall not indulge in legal argument. I trust that we have made it clear what we have in mind. I do not believe that is any real difference in principle between us, and I am not in the least tied to the form of words here. 1f the Minister were to accept the principle—I cannot speak for my hon. Friend, but I expect he will agree with me—and say that he will consider the matter and give effect to the point we have in mind, that would satisfy us.

Mr. Sandys: I will try to reply to this Amendment without emotion. I hope I will not disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Ay lesbury (Mr. Summers) when I say that I find myself in considerable sympathy with the intentions which have inspired this Amendment and that I am impressed with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) and by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
The case, as I understand it, is that a single small development scheme might by itself be unimportant, but that the effect upon the plans and efficiency of the industry as a whole of a large number of similar small schemes, when taken together, might be substantial.

Mr. Mitchison: That is largely the point.

Mr. Sandys: It is deduced from that that the Board should have a right to call for the submission of small schemes when it considers that it is not an isolated case, and that there may be a number of other schemes of a similar nature which cumulatively might deserve the consideration of the Board. It is a valid argument, but there are also, I consider, valid arguments against it. The main one being that it would create a loophole which would enable the Board to call for the submission of any scheme of development, however small.
The Amendment even goes so far as to refer—I have not the exact words in front of me, but this is the effect of them —to a scheme which did not yet exist but which might be likely to be proposed later. That is very wide and sweeping, and in my opinion it virtually nullifies the effect of subsection (2).
The purpose of that subsection is to ensure that, as far as possible, the Board will concentrate its attention upon schemes of major importance and not feel obliged to concern itself actively with the mass of small improvements and extensions which go on in the industry all the time.
I do not wish hon. Gentlemen opposite to think that I am not in sympathy with their point of view, but there is a genuine conflict between our two wishes in regard to the Clause. I recognise that a number of small schemes which are individually insignificant may collectively reveal an undesirable trend. That is the crux of the problem. I submit that the way to deal with it is not through the Board's vetoing one small scheme after another firm by firm, but to tackle it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggested, as part of the general review of the industry's plans and development which will take place under Clause 4.
In our view that is the most important part of the Bill. Much has been said about other Clauses but, so far as


development is concerned, the opening subsection of Clause 4 is the operative one. We believe that it is through these consultations with the industry that the Board will exercise its influence upon the structure of the industry rather than by the restrictions, limitations and definitions which have been discussed. If these consultations take place within the framework of the general review under Clause 4 the situation envisaged in the Amendment is not likely to arise.
It is a theoretical problem rather than a real one, and I am afraid that, in trying to solve it we may create the real and practical difficult of nullifying the effect of the subsection.
While I continue to feel sympathy towards the Amendment and the thought behind it, I think that, having regard to the difficulties, it would be better, on balance, not to make the changes which it proposes.

Amendment negatived.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, after "appellant" to insert "or the Board."
Would it be convenient, Sir Charles, for the Committee also to consider all the consequential Amendments down to the Amendment in page 6, line 16?

The Chairman: Yes, it would. Those Amendments all go together.

Mr. Simon: Perhaps it would also be for the convenience of the Committee if I read the Clause as it will be if the Amendments to which I have referred are accepted. The Clause would then read as follows:
If the Board refuse their consent to any such proposal, the person making the proposal may appeal to the Minister from that refusal, and the Minister shall consider any representations made by the appellant or the Board in writing and shall give the appellant and the Board an opportunity of appearing in person or by their representatives before a person appointed by the Minister and shall consider and (unless in his opinion it would be contrary to the national interest) publish the report of that person, and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, give his consent to the proposal, which shall have effect as if it were the consent of the Board.
I hope the Committee will feel that this is an important point. The Clause is concerned with safeguarding the ordinary

citizen whose rights are invaded. We are all in favour of the citizen giving way in certain cases to the national interests, as represented by the Board, but the Clause is in the Bill to safeguard the citizen and it is essential that the safeguards should be real. This matter was very well put by my right hon. Friend in the White Paper debate. When dealing with this point, he said;
Since we regard it as a serious thing to interfere with the right of companies to spend their own money in their own way and to take risks as they think right, we shall also provide a right of appeal to the Minister against the decision of the Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1291.]
That means that the ordinary individual has the right to spend his own money in his own way on his own property. We are taking away that right, but the safeguards given to him by the Bill must be real. We feel that natural justice demands that certain conditions should be satisfied. The first is that the citizen must know what case he has to meet. He has not that right under the Clause as drafted.
Secondly, if there is an arbitrament and the Minister is to be in the position of an arbiter, the two contestants, the one whose interests are invaded and the one who invades those interests, should appear before the arbiter on terms of substantial equality; and, arising out of that and even more important, the arbiter must not in any circumstances discuss the case with one of the contestants before giving his decision and after hearing the representations. I think it was Kipling. in one of his finest verses, who said:
… Let no man talk aside
In secret with his judges the while his case is tried.
As the Clause is drawn, one of the contesting parties is drawn aside with the judge, and that is objectionable.
There is another important point here which does not relate so much to natural justice—which should weigh with us in considering the rights of the two parties as they appear before the Minister—as to the rights of the House. We all value throughout this Committee the great safeguards of the civil rights of the citizen even more highly than we value the iron and steel industry and the people who work in it. The feeling that has been marked throughout the debate is that what we value even more than the wealth and prosperity of this industry is our tradition of freedom and of civil


liberty. We all united to defend it when it was threatened, and I do not doubt that we should do so again. However, all these civil liberties are invaded little by little. In our lifetime we have had an example of how the first step can be taken and the liberties of a nation disappear in the process of time. The truth is that freedom has no natural frontiers and a breach in any part of the frontier means that the whole position is sold.
So these points are really important if we are to make a stand as we must, as the House always has, against the encroachments of the Executive. That leads me to my last point. The great safeguards of the individual in his struggle against the encroachments of the Executive have been two-fold—the courts and the House of Commons. Here the House of Commons has a power to control the Minister who is given the final arbitrament, but it can only do that if it knows on what grounds he gave his decision.
It is for that reason that we who have put our names to these Amendments believe that the report on which the Minister acts should be published unless it is against the national interest that it should be published. If it contains only the arguments of the Board and of the appellant, as he is called, there is no possible reason why it should not be published. If it contains more than that, it if contains the recommendation of the man appointed to hear those representations, there is every reason why it should be published because, without that, this House can retain no control over the Minister when he gives his decision in the case.
In conclusion, the Committee may feel that the word "appellant" here is misleading. This is not the case of an appeal from a judge to a superior court. If it were that, it might be argued that it would be wrong to have the Board appearing on terms of substantial equality with the person whose rights it is invading before the judge; but it is not. This is an appeal to the Minister by the person whose rights have been prima facie invaded against the action of the Board which, with the sanction of Parliament. has invaded those rights. Therefore they are two contestants on terms of equality and they should be put on terms of equality.
I admit freely that the words in which we have sought to express this purpose are probably inadequate, but I ask my hon. and learned Friend to say that he will deal with these points to see not only that substantial justice is done but that natural justice can be seen to be done to the citizens whose rights we have given the Board the right to invade.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has put this matter on the basis of natural justice, because I anticipated the accusation that this was some clutter of lawyers making jobs for themselves. It is not. I could not hope to improve on the way my hon. and learned Friend has put the point before the Committee, and it certainly would not be improved by repetition, but I believe that as the Clause stands it is even worse.
In the first place we confer upon this appellant the opportunity of challenging the contention of the Board. He will, of course, be at a grave disadvantage if he does not know what the contention of the Board is. and at present there is no machinery to rid him of that marked disadvantage. There is thus conferred a generous opportunity for him to prefer his own case, and he will have joy of that, but his joy will be greatly diminished if the Board has a right of replying on it, and even further diminished if that right of reply is to be exercised in secret, whispered into the ear of the Minister.
That is what I believe would happen under the words of the subsection as it stands because, if there is consultation with the Board, it is not to happen until the so-called appellant has revealed what is his own case. It is, therefore, a reply and a reply nominally done in hole-and-corner fashion, which will not dispel gloom. I hope in all sincerity, in order to make this a proper appearance of justice, that either my hon. and learned Friend will himself, or by persuasion of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, take the opportunity to have another look at this matter.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I have listened with interest to the arguments advanced by my two hon. and learned Friends in criticising this Clause. Certain of them had a familiar ring, but when this Clause is fully understood I think my hon. and learned Friends will appreciate that in


relation to it their remarks are not really very applicable.
In considering this subsection to which my hon. and learned Friends desire to make so many Amendments, one has to bear in mind on what kind of matters this right of appeal may be exercisable. It is clear that the Board is not likely to have any power to refuse its consent to any proposal which is
unlikely substantially to affect the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain.
It would follow, therefore, that if the proposal is of a limited size or cost, or the class of products concerned is small— so small as to be unlikely substantially to affect the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain, the Board would not have power to refuse consent. That is the short interpretation of subsection (2). When it gets a proposal which does not come within that category, the power of the Board to refuse consent is limited to one ground specified in subsection (3), namely,
that the proposal will seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain.
So one can conclude from this that the project where consent is refused is likely to be of a major character.
When one comes to subsection (3), the first point made by my hon. and learned Friend was that if the Board refuses its consent it should give to the appellant the reason for its refusal in order to ensure that the appellant knows what case he has to meet if he wishes to appeal. One of the curious features about this long list of Amendments is that there is no Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friends to secure that purpose.

Mr. Simon: If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to interrupt, the right to have the Board before the Minister on terms of equality implies the right to cross-examine.

The Solicitor-General: I am very sorry but I did not hear all that, though perhaps I should have done. If I may continue the argument I was advancing, the reason why the Board can refuse an application is specified in terms in subsection (3), but if it is seriously felt that some additional reason might or could be given by the Board which would be

helpful to the appellant, that is a matter for further consideration and one on which some adjustment might be made.
8.0 p.m.
Take now the next point raised by my hon. and learned Friend on his Amendment. It is very easy to talk about natural justice and to specify certain conditions which must be satisfied, and it is easy to refer to the Board and to the unsuccessful applicant as being two parties to litigation. I am sure that in the minds of my hon. and learned Friends there lies the idea of some sort of inquiry by an inspector appointed by the Minister. The subsection, however, does not provide anything of that sort. It has got away from the old form of inquiry under an inspector appointed by a Minister, with which we are all so very familiar. It is, perhaps, because this has not been sufficiently realised that we have to meet so many Amendments on the Clause.
In the first place, the Board have to decide, and they can only reject on the ground that I have mentioned. Then, if there is an appeal, it goes to the Minister, and by the subsection the final decision is placed fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the Minister, and not upon any representative appointed by him. It is the Minister's decision, and he will be responsible to the House.
What we seek to secure by the Clause is that the appellant can first submit any representations he likes in writing to the Minister. There can be no complaint about that. There is then the further stage that if the appellant wishes to make some oral observations also—if, for instance, the appellant says, "It is difficult for me to put my case as I should like to put it in writing. I should like to see someone and to explain the points"—under the Clause, that appellant has the statutory right to see a representative of the Minister for the purpose of expounding his case better. That will go to the Minister, and the representative of the Minister, to hear those oral representations, is really a reporter to the Minister and quite distinct from the position of an inspector holding an inquiry and making a recommendation.
I do not say that it would be wrong of the representative to report to his Minister, "These arguments were advanced by the appellant. He feels much more strongly upon this one than


upon that"; but the final decision—and this, I think, is the advantage of the Clause—rests entirely upon the Minister.
If we are to allow the appellant to make representations in writing and by word of mouth, then obviously, if we consider the position of the Minister, who has to decide, he should be entitled to hear the views of the Board. It may be that when he has heard the views of the Board he will want further information from the appellant, and he ought to be able to get it. Similarly, if he wants further information from the Board, he ought to be able to get it.
There is a little force in the criticism which has been advanced of the drafting of the subsection which would make it appear that the Board will always be consulted last. That is not the intention. The intention is that the Minister, who has to decide, should be able to consult whichever of the two parties he wants, in which ever order he wishes and how many times he wants, before he finally arrives at a decision. I think that to avoid giving the impression that the Board will be consulted, and must be consulted, last, it will be possible to make some rearrangement of the drafting of that part of the subsection so as to secure that while the Minister has power to get such information as he desires, both from the Board and from the appellant, there should be nothing in the Clause prescribing which he should consult last.
I hope that with this explanation my hon. and learned Friends will realise that the effect of their Amendment is to make the appeal very different from what is prescribed by the subsection, in that the effect of their Amendment would be to make the appeal very similar to the inquiry such as is held under the Town and Country Planning Act and other Acts. To make it similar in that respect, the effect of the Amendments would, I think, be to put the representative of the Minister into the same position as an inspector—and many a time we have had criticisms advanced of those inquiries. In the subsection, by dealing with it in the way that we have, I feel that we have avoided some of the measures to which great objection was taken.
One further point which was put by my hon. and learned Friends concerned

the publication of the decision of the Minister.

Mr. Simon: Not of the decision, but of the report.

The Solicitor-General: I did not gather that my hon. and learned Friend was asking for publication of the report made by the representative. If he is asking for that, I cannot meet him on it. The report which is made by the representative to his Minister is something which should not be published. If the appellant likes to put anything in writing to the Minister, he can do so. If the appellant—the choice lies with him—likes to see a representative of the Minister, he can do so; but it would be wrong to ask that whatever report was made by the representative of the Minister should be made public. I thought that my hon. and learned Friend's point was that the Minister's decision, after hearing all representations that are made to him, either by the Board or by the appellant, should be published with, presumably, the reasons for that decision. I am afraid that we cannot meet my hon. and learned Friend with regard to that.
The reasons for the decision may be such that the appellant or other persons in the industry would certainly not welcome publication. I feel that we have gone sufficiently far to provide the essential safeguards of natural justice by providing that there should be this appeal from the decision of the Board and providing also that the determination of that appeal should rest with the Minister.
I hope that I have covered all the points made by my hon. and learned Friend. I am glad that he has raised this matter. If one can avoid looking at this problem as if there were, as he suggested, two contestants on terms of equality, and could look at it, perhaps, in a non-legal fashion—that here is a Board which has to determine matters of policy, a decision which may, of course, result in an application being turned down, and that from that Board there is this right of appeal to the Minister himself—I hope that on reflection my hon. and learned Friends will agree that the essential safeguards are satisfactorily met.
I should like to make it quite clear that on those two points—namely, the publication of the reasons why the Board rejects, and second, the rearrangement so


as to make it clear that the Board will not necessarily have the last word—I can undertake that further consideration will be given to securing the amendment of the subsection on those matters.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I feel that the concessions which the Solicitor-General has given go towards taking away the fears I had, but I should like to make one point. My hon. and learned Friend said that it is not likely that these production facilities will be of a small character. I should like to point out that it is quite possible, under the Bill as now drafted, for the Board to notify one particular class of product, which might be a specialised class of product, and if there were to be a development of that specialised class of product, even quite a small amount, nevertheless it might represent a substantial advantage to the national pro. duct of that kind.
If the notice in writing from the Board which my hon. and learned Friend proposes comes to the appellant, will the appellant have any opportunity of cross-examining or putting any points to the Board, or to the representative of the Board? It appears that there might be a man or a firm under a sense of injustice. My hon. and learned Friend must accept that; there may be no injustice and the sense of injustice might be dispelled, but, if the man goes before the representative, the representative need give no reasons whatever to the appellant and the Minister need give no reasons whatever to the appellant. The man might be told that the matter is turned down by reason of the national interest.
All the Solicitor-General has conceded is that the Board must state its views in writing. It may well be that someone who is aggrieved feels there are some ulterior motives behind the action of the Board. It should be possible for the appellant to cross-examine the representative of the Board to see how he stands up under cross-examination. We do not seem to have gone so far as that. If notice in writing is given, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will make quite certain that the reason will be an adequate reason and not merely that of the national interest. My hon. and learned Friend has gone a long way to allay the fears I had and I imagine that the last part,

dealing with consultation with the Board after the appellant has seen the Minister, or the representative of the Minister, would also be amended. Subject to my hon. and learned Friend explaining the point in regard to a man with a sense of grievance being able to put points to the representative of the Board, I think he has gone a long way to help us in this matter.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) and I may differ as to the probability of the Board taking action in regard to a very small class of products. There I commend to his attention subsection (2). He asked if an unsuccessful appellant would have an opportunity of cross-examining the Board. The answer, quite frankly, is "no." I do not think he should have that opportunity. The Board acts as a high body making decisions on policy and, to use the analogy of the courts, we are not normally able to cross-examine a county court judge if we wish to appeal.
My hon. Friend also asked if the appellant could put points to the Board. There is nothing here to stop the appellant putting what points he wishes. The appellant can put what points he likes to the Minister and make any representations he likes. He can say to the Minister, or to his representative, "I think the Board were wrong about this." Then, obviously, it would be a matter for the Minister to inquire into and to make up his mind upon. I think that in that way justice will be done and the person whose application is refused is given a very valuable right should the Board perchance come to a wrong conclusion.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Simon: We have had two concessions from my hon. and learned Friend, though I must say it struck me that they were given in an extraordinarily grudging way—rather with the air of an Eastern despot sparing the life of some unfortunate slave. We were told that it would be wrong to publish the report. My hon. and learned Friend is a very eminent figure in the profession to which I am proud to belong. When he advances any legal argument we listen to him with respect. When he advances any argument we listen to him with respect. But when


he merely gives an ethical judgment we say, "No, we prefer to listen to the bench of bishops." Unfortunately, we are left with the feeling that this is not a real safeguard for the individual whose rights are endangered but merely an opportunity for blowing off steam. We do not feel that that is good enough. I do hope that the Minister, in reconsidering the matter, will approach it in a less grudging spirit than that shown by my hon. and learned Friend. With that request to him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move in page 6, line 21, at the end, to add:
(6) This section shall not apply to any proposal to provide or secure the provision of additional production facilities consisting only of premises, plant or machinery proposed to be used for the carrying on of any activity included in paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule to this Act or for the carrying on of any incidental activity in connection with any activity so included.
The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt the foundries from the application of the Board's power of veto in respect of development schemes under Clause 5. From the start we have made it quite clear that we wish the Iron and Steel Board to concentrate on major issues of policy and not to become involved in too much detail.
As I said to the House during the Second Reading debate, we consider that the Board should concern itself primarily with large expansion schemes in the heavy end of the industry. The smaller the scheme and the further we get away from the heavy end of the industry, the less it is necessary for the Board to exercise the power of veto in regard to development schemes. We sought in our original draft of the Bill to make this intention perfectly clear. Subsection (3) limits the Board's power of veto to schemes which would
seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities.
In addition, under subsection (2), the Board have a duty to consult the industry to ensure that producers are not required to submit small schemes which would be unlikely to have any substantial effect on the efficient and economic development of the industry.
So far as the foundries are concerned, I explained during the Second Reading debate that, it was most unlikely that any foundry scheme would, in practice, be

large enough to come within the scope of the Board's veto powers as defined in this Clause. Since then, I have had an analysis made of all the foundry development schemes carried out during the last six years. Altogether, there have been about 2,000. The Committee may be interested to know that more than 90 per cent. of them cost less than £50,000.
Personally, I remain satisfied that the Bill, as it is now drafted, makes it clear that the Board is not intended to concern itself with minor schemes of this kind; nor do I believe that any Board composed of sensible and responsible men would interpret this Clause in any other way. Nevertheless, there is no harm in making quite sure.
I have already accepted several Amendments, proposed by the Party opposite designed to remove doubts about the definition of other aspects of the Board's powers. Some of these Amendments were not strictly necessary. I accepted them because I felt—and I think that I have had the support of hon. Members in this, though not the support of Parliamentary draftsmen, who are apt to question the desirability of adding words which are not strictly necessary—that it is desirable to remove any possible uncertainty which there may be in regard to the intention of Parliament.
On an earlier Amendment today, the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) advised us to leave nothing to chance and to write our intentions clearly into the Bill. The hon. Lady said that it is better to be safe than to be sorry, and it is in that spirit that I submit this Amendment.

Mr. Mikardo: I had better say at the outset that I am completely opposed to this Amendment, but had I not been completely opposed to it when I read it, I should certainly be opposed to it after hearing the Minister's speech, because he gave a most frank, and one could almost say, abject admission that the whole thing was really a piece of windowdressing. While everybody is anxious that the Bill should be clear, and that anything necessary for its clarity should be inserted into it, it would be a common view amongst all hon. Members that there was something objectionable about putting into a Bill things which have no value at all or whose only value is window-dressing for pressure groups outside.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not know how far the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is capable of understanding the implications of what his right hon. Friend has said, but the Minister has not interpreted it in the way that he has. The right hon. Gentleman said, "I have been advised by those competent to advise me that my intentions are secured without putting these words in, but I am going to put them in." Why is he going to put them in? It is because he has been under pressure from the associations or organisations which own foundries to put them in, and I must say that these people will not be very pleased when they read the right hon. Gentleman's words in HANSARD tomorrow.
What he said, as nearly as I can remember it, is that any reasonable body of persons would see the point without the words, and that seems to carry very clearly the implication that he does not look upon the foundry associaions which have been pressing him as reasonable bodies of persons. It looks to me as though he has become a bit fet up with them, and with their lobbying, pressure and nagging, and that he was tempted into a slightly indiscreet observation or implication about them.
We are not here discussing whether foundries should be left out of consideration, because the great majority of their schemes are very small, and, indeed, the Minister gave us figures, but for those that are very small there is already a subsection which leaves them out of account. All we are discussing now is whether, if there are or should be any development schemes in foundries which substantially affect efficiency—and we are agreed that if there are any, they will be only a small number—they should fall within the purview of the Board or not.
There seems to me to be no case, and certainly no case so far made out, for saying that if a scheme, because of its size or nature, would not be exempted by subsection (2) if it were some other part of the steel industry than foundries, it should be exempted merely because it is a foundry. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, if a foundry scheme brought forward is of such a nature as seriously to effect efficiency, in the words of the Bill, the Board ought to have no

cognisance of it at all, merely because it is treating metal in one way instead of another way?
As a matter of fact, as hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee know, the part which is played by foundry work has steadily increased in importance throughout the metal industries over the last few years, and recent technical developments suggest that it may increase still further. There is almost no other metal product which can so influence a general production programme as a casting, and we are tending to rely more and more upon castings and to develop new techniques which will enable us to produce bigger and heavier castings all the time without any structural weaknesses. There are likely to be developments in the future which will be of such a nature that they ought to fall within the consideration of the Board, and it is a great pity if we are preventing the Board from considering them.
I know from my own experience, and I expect that the right hon. Gentleman has found this out with the contracts which his Department put out, that when we chase a production programme which is falling behind schedule, seven times out of 10 the reason is castings, and although this sector of the industry represents only a small proportion of its total value and weight, it is an important section.
8.30 p.m.
There is one further point. We are all cognisant of the fact that taken averagely, and with some honourable exceptions, foundries are the slums of the metal-using industries. We are all cognisant of the fact that the prevalance of bad working conditions, bad air, bad ventilation, unnecessarily high temperatures, and, above all, dirt is much more widespread in foundries than in any other sector of the metal-using industries, and, indeed, one might almost say in any other industry at all.
Over and over again we have been told—and above all in the Report of the Garrett Committee—that everybody recognises that something ought to be done about this. But everybody equally recognises that in order to do something about it one would need to spend a fair amount of money. Even that is something of a change of heart. I can remember the time when the evil conditions of foundries, the foul air and the


dirt used to be regarded almost as an act of God, and something about which one could do nothing.
Now, of course, one realises that if we devoted to the provision of proper environmental conditions in factories the same ingenuity and thought, and anything like the same amount of money, as we devote to perfecting the techniques of the foundry itself, we could go a long way towards removing these very bad conditions. I can visualise, and I am sure other hon. Members can also, a condition in which it becomes a very debatable question whether money spent at a given point and for a given purpose in foundries is better spent on new development or in improving the environmental conditions in an existing foundry.
I should have thought that the Minister would want to retain large foundry projects within the purview of the Clause—the small ones are, as he said, already ruled out—if only for the purpose of putting the Board in a position in which it might well say to a company, "Before you go ahead with the building of this great new foundry, will you please spend some money making your existing foundry fit for workers to work in."
I am quite sure that is a valid point on technical grounds, and I know it is one of the points which the trade unions and the General Council of the T.U.C. have very much in mind when they demand the inclusion of large foundry projects within the purview of the Bill. I do not say—indeed, it would be something that no hon. Member would wish to say—that the fact that the General Council of the T.U.C. and all the unions in the industry concerned unanimously take a certain view should be the ultimate and determining factor in deciding what the House or the Committee of the House should do; but it is certainly a factor which we would not want to leave out of account without the most careful consideration.
There is a great deal of feeling in the industry—indeed, I do not know any other single matter which has raised such strong feeling in the trade union movement—concerning the fact that conditions in foundries have improved scarcely at all over the last few years, whereas conditions in industry generally have shown a very considerable improvement indeed. I should have thought, if only on the

grounds that this subsection might be used in some cases to ameliorate those conditions, that the Minister would not want to preclude large foundry schemes from the Bill. I ask him to think again about this. He is giving way to a bit of pressure—

Mr. Sandys: I would make clear to the hon. Gentleman, because I think he has perhaps misread the Bill, that, while this Amendment excludes foundries from the Board's veto on development under Clause 5, they are, of course, included like any other part of the iron and steel industry under Clause 3 which gives the Board the duty to keep under review the health, safety and well-being of the workpeople. Therefore, as regards conditions of work, the foundry industry is in exactly the same relation to the Board as is any other part of the industry.

Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very important part of my case. May I put one consideration to him? Honestly, I am not trying to score any points about this. The worst thing one could possibly do is to give to the Board a duty without power to carry out that duty. That is really the worst of all possible worlds. If they have no power they had better not have the responsibility, and if they have a responsibility we had better give them the power to carry it out. If foundries are left out of this part of the Clause, how on earth can the Board carry out the duty which the Minister has laid on them under Clause 3 in regard to foundries?
Much the best point at which the Board can use their influence to improve conditions is precisely at the point in the example which I gave of a company which is already doing foundry work on a large scale and comes along and says, "We want to build an additional foundry." It ought to lie within the purview of the Board—which it will not if the Amendment is carried—to say, "No. We think you would get greater and more efficient output, not by tacking a new foundry on to the old one, but by putting your old, bad foundry into a decent condition." If they did that, they would carry out precisely the duty which the Minister quite rightly described in his intervention. But if the Minister carries his Amendment, he will prohibit them completely from carrying out that duty.

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not want a suggestion to go out of this Committee that the Board, as a result of this Amendment, will not be able to do their duty. As the hon. Member himself has said, even if this Amendment were not introduced, the vast majority of the foundry schemes, large or small, would not come before the Board. But with his knowledge of the foundry industry, the hon. Member will know that in the main the large foundries are, for obvious reasons, the most advanced and progressive in their development. The small ones, which perhaps are below the standards that we would like to have, are just the ones which, in any case, if the Amendment were not passed, would not be subject to the veto powers of the Board.

Mr. Mikardo: What the right hon. Gentleman has said about the effect on foundries as they are now is perfectly correct, but we are not talking about existing foundries or their size. We are talking about developments. In exercising influence over development, the Board would have some opportunity—I grant that it would be an opportunity severely limited by the terms of subsection (2)— of exercising influence in raising the standard of conditions in some parts of the foundry industry.
I am not arguing that the situation would be perfect if the Minister withdrew his Amendment. My argument is that if we adopt the Amendment the situation would be worse than otherwise it would be, because it then means that, whatever else the Board do about conditions, they cannot use their influence over development in any foundries, great or small. in order to improve conditions. Although the right hon. Gentleman made it understandably clear about its not going out from the Committee that the Board will not be in a position to do their duty, it is a cold, simple, hard fact that if the Bill is amended the Board will not do anything about conditions in foundries, because the Board will not have any power to do anything about bad conditions.
I hope that the Minister will take the observations which I have made in the constructive and helpful spirit in which I meant to put them. I hope that he will think very hard again about this subject before we come to that stage of the Bill

where the die is finally cast. Here is a case where, for the sake of a little window-dressing, he is giving away what may be something of importance and creating a great deal of hard feeling amongst workers throughout the industry and, indeed, amongst millions of workers beyond the confines of the industry.

Mr. Nabarro: As in the case of the Second Reading debate on this Bill, I have the pleasure of following the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). The hon. Member has fallen into the error of believing that statutory responsibility for improving conditions with regard to health, safety and welfare in the iron founding industries belongs to the Iron and Steel Board. In fact, it never will do so, whether this Bill reaches the Statute Book in its amended form or otherwise. The responsibility belongs to the Minister of Labour, under the appropriate sections of the Factories Act, 1937.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) introduced a Private Member's Bill a few weeks ago the express purpose of which was to improve the conditions and welfare of the workers in the iron founding industry. I supported that Bill; but the hon. Lady subsequently withdrew it, on the understanding that the appropriate Statutory Instruments could be created by the Minister of Labour to give effect to her desires—which are also our desires—the general purpose of which is to improve conditions in the foundries.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not violently quarrel with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I said what I did in reply to an intervention by the Minister, who said that under this Bill the responsibility lay with the Board. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the pre-nationalisation Iron and Steel Board had responsibility for foundries; so we are retrogressing even beyond the pre-nationalisation position.

Mr. Nabarro: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is placing the correct interpretation upon this position. He is being a trifle disingenuous. The position under the old Board was that they accepted a general responsibility for health, safety and welfare conditions, and they could make the appropriate recommendations to the Minister of Labour.
We are splitting hairs in this matter because really the purpose of this Amendment is not to deal specifically with health, safety and welfare; it is to deal with the expansion and development of iron foundries. In the Second Reading debate on this Bill, I used these words:
… the Board should have no restrictive powers affecting the development of iron foundries except in cases where such development is called for in an amount of more than £250,000 as an aggregate of plant and buildings. For anything less than that amount, the Board should not have any degree of control at all. Such an arrangement would, of course, restrict the use of such powers to major schemes alone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 705.]
I based that proposal on a long and practical experience of the engineering and allied industries.
The fact is that there are more than 2,000 foundries of one kind and another in this country. Ninety-five per cent. of them employ fewer than 50 persons. They are a heterogeneous mass of small units, generally to be found in the areas where the engineering industry is concentrated. The engineering firms in the Midlands and the Black Country have satellite foundries around them, supplying them with the specialised castings they need for their individual products and purposes. In addition to that, there is the complication, which I have been at pains to endeavour to impress upon my right hon. Friend, that many engineering companies have their own foundries, which are generally referred to as tied foundries.
I say, with great emphasis and sincerity, that it should not be the purpose or responsibility of the Iron and Steel Board to interfere in the production processes or development of the engineering industry. Had there been control by the Iron and Steel Board over the development of all foundries, one of the difficulties would have been that the Board would have exercised a degree of statutory limitation, restriction and control over the affairs of tied foundries, which are essentially an integral part of the engineering industry, as opposed to the iron and steel industry.
8.45 p.m.
I consider that my right hon. Friend has behaved with considerable perspicacity in this matter and with a good deal of versatility of mind. He has not

submitted, as the hon. Member for Reading, South, suggested had been the case, to blandishments, threats or pressures from outside interests. I have done a good deal of persuasion and made certain points, not the least of which the hon. Gentleman has conveniently omitted from the course of his long speech this evening—the fact that if the terms of the Bill had stood in their original form, it would have meant that a foundry employing two men and only one sandbox, making a few castings, and wishing to add one more sandbox and two more men to double its' minute size, would have had to apply to the Iron and Steel Board for permission to do so.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Nonsense.

Mr. Nabarro: It is not nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman should go away and read the Bill as it was originally drafted. That would have been the case, and that is why I appealed to my right hon. Friend to exclude all iron foundries from these development provisions for amounts involved in the aggregate of plant and machinery, of less than £250,000. That has nothing to do with health, safety or welfare. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the considerate and generous way in which he has responded to my representations and to those of the engineering and allied industries.

Mr. Mikardo: Blandishments.

Mr. Nabarro: In fact, my right hon. Friend has gone a good deal further than I asked, because he has exempted from the control of the Board all development plans for iron foundries. I consider that in so doing he has created a much better Bill and has removed a great deal of misunderstanding which might otherwise have occurred.

Mr. Lee: It was rather amusing to see the Minister trembling as he heard his master's voice once again in public. Perhaps I can go a little further than the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in his discussion of the Private Member's Bill by reminding him that the Ministry of Labour issued those Regulations last week, so that he and I have done something, together with the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown). in bringing that about.
Most of the development which has taken place in recent years in connection with foundries—and this may sound a little Irish—has not been inside the foundries. I refer to the pre-fabrication and welding which is now taking place. In many big factories a majority of the large individual pieces which previously were cast are now pre-fabricated. That sort of development demands the deployment of a great deal of capital. What is the position of the Board in that kind of work?
If we take the case of a job which until recently has been a casting and which has now been taken out of the foundry into a tank shop to be welded and produced as a pre-fabricated piece, in what relationship do the Board stand to that sort of development? The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) will tell the Minister that this feature is growing. Indeed, there was a well-known anxiety in the foundry world at one time which I feel manifested itself in the small number of parents who were sending their sons into the trade. They thought there would be no work for the foundries to do. That is a development which the Bill does not take into consideration.
I really think that before we part with the Bill the Minister should enlighten us as to whether that sort of development will come within the Amendment he is now proposing, or whether it was within the control of the Board as he envisaged it before proposing the Amendment.

Mr. F. J. Erroll: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) for referring to my small knowledge of foundry work, gained from the same firm, I believe, as that from which he gained most of his engineering knowledge
I would point out that in Altrincham we still have a number of iron foundries producing a large number of iron castings. Contrary to the experience of certain other engineering plants, foundries at Altrincham find that their products are still very much in demand, because there is a number of types of engineering work for which castings, and large castings, are still absolutely essential, and while this new technique of welding and fabrication may make serious inroads

into many firms' types of foundry products, there is still a mainstay of heavy castings which will always be required.
Of course, at the same time there is a large demand for cast products of new types to meet new requirements, and that is why it is very important that we should do nothing in this Bill, however unintentionally, to inhibit those groups of people and firms who may wish to embark on large developments to take advantage of the demand for new types of cast iron products.
Just as the Minister has referred to the "fringe of industries" around the edges of the iron and steel industry, so there is, of course, in any Bill a fringe of definitions, and where some individuals may express doubt, it is surely as well that that doubt should be cleared up by making the definition more exact. So I submit that it was quite right of the Minister, because there had obviously been doubt expressed, to remove the doubt by saying that no foundry developments would have to be submitted to the Board for its prior consent, thereby removing any inhibitions that individuals or firms may have felt about going forward to a new development.
I cannot say that I have much regard for the point made by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) about this being the best way of ensuring better working conditions.

Mr. Mikardo: I did not say that.

Mr. Erroll: I can assure the hon. Member that we on this side of the Committee are just as sensitive to the importance of improving working conditions in foundries as he is. Probably, I have worked much more in foundries than he has, and I know what that work is like. There are many occupations that are dirtier than foundry work, such as certain agricultural and mining operations, and foundries are not always as bad as they are painted by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Mikardo: They are not painted. That is the trouble. They just rust.

Mr. Erroll: However, the important thing is not by any means, however unintentionally, to inhibit possible and useful and worth-while development with a view to keeping the industry still a great one, although, as the hon. Member for


Newton pointed out, inevitably and rightly a changing one.
I should like to correct a possible slight ebullition of over enthusiasm by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in talking about a foundry employing two men and one sandbox—a very low standard of productivity even for a British foundry—perhaps a foundry controlled by my hon. Friend, and having, I hope, a small cupola from which to pour the ferrous metal. He was suggesting that if it were desired in such a foundry to have one more sandbox it would be necessary to apply to the Board for approval. I do not think, although he tries to style himself a king maker, if not from Warwick, at least from Kidderminster, that he has read the Bill as closely as he should have done. He may claim to have altered the Bill, to have influenced the Bill, but I doubt whether he has actually read it; because had he read it more carefully he would have seen that the Board will have absolute power and discretion to decide upon the size and nature of the development work which will have to be reported to it. I cannot believe that any body of men appointed by the Minister, doubtless alter consulting the hon. Member for Kidderminster, would be quite so foolish as to insist upon the reporting of

the addition of a sandbox to the ordinary working equipment of a two-men foundry.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend is in one of his most speculative moods. He cannot presume, at this stage of the proceedings, to say what would be the intentions, the desire, the purpose or the policy of this Board. In fact, I took the matter to an absurd extreme, but it is nevertheless the fact that in the interpretation, strictly literally—and I said literally—it is still possible for the Board to require an authorisation to carry out a minor improvement of that sort.

Mr. Erroll: I was expecting only an interruption, but it proved to be a second speech. Subsection (2) does mention particularly that
proposed additional production facilities or the class of products concerned or other relevant factors, would be unlikely substantially to affect the efficient and economic development of production facilities….
I do not think that small-scale developments of the type exemplified by my hon. Friend could possibly fall within that category.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 218.

Division No. 90.]
AYES
[8.57 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Duthie, W. S.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Erroll, F. J.


Alport, C. J. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T.
Fell, A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bullard, D. G.
Finlay, Graeme


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Fisher, Nigel


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Campbell, Sir David
Fort, R.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Carr, Robert
Foster, John


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Carson, Hon. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lansdale)


Baldwin, A. E.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Banks, Col. C.
Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Barber, Anthony
Cole, Norman
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Colegate, W. A.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Baxter, A. B.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Godber, J. B.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gough, C. F. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gower, H. R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Crouch, R. F.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grimond, J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Birch, Nigel
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bishop, F. P.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Black, C. W.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Boothby, R. J. G
Deedes, W. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bossom, A. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Boyle, Sir Edward
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hay, John


Braine, B. R.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Heald, Sir Lionel


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Heath, Edward


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)




Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Holt, A. F.
Markham, Major S. F
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Hope, Lord John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott, R. Donald


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Marples, A. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Shepherd, William


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mellor, Sir John
Smithiers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Molson, A. H. E.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hurd, A. R.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Snadden, W. McN.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Speir, R. M.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stevens, G. P.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicholls, Harmer
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Storey, S.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Noble. Cmdr. A. H. P.
Summers, G. S.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Teeling, W.


Kaberry, D.
Odey, G. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Keeling, Sir Edward
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lambton, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Tilney, John


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Turner, H. F. L


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turton, R. H.


Leather, E. H. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Vosper, D. F


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wade, D. W.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Linstead, H. N.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Llewel[...]yn, D. T.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Longden, Gilbert
Profumo, J. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Low, A. R. W.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Watkinson, H. A.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Redmayne, M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Renton, D. L. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


McAdden, S. J.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wood, Hon. R.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Roper Sir Harold



Maclean, Fitzroy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Russell, R. S.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Wills




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Adams, Richard
Crosland, C. A. R
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Albu, A. H.
Crossman, R. H. S
Hale, Leslie


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Daines, P.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hamilton, W. W


Baird, J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hannan, W.


Balfour, A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hargreaves, A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bartley, P.
Deer, G.
Hastings, S.


Bence, C. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Hayman, F. H


Benn, Wedgwood
Dodds, N. N.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Benson, G.
Donnelly, D. L.
Herbison, Miss M.


Beswick, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hewitson, Capt. M


Bing, G. H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
Hobson, C. R


Blackburn, F.
Edelman, M.
Holman, P.


Blenkinsop, A,
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Houghton, Douglas


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bowden, H. W.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brockway, A. F.
Ewart, R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fienburgh, W.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Finch, H. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Janner, B.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Follick, M.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Foot, M. M.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Callaghan, L. J.
Forman, J. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Carmichael, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Champion, A. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Chapman, W. D
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham. S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Glanville, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Clunie, J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Keenan, W.


Collick, P. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Kenyon, C.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grenfell, Rt. Hon, D. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W







King, Dr. H. M
Paget, R. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Kinley, J.
Palmer, A. M. F
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pannell, Charles
Swingler, S. T.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pargiter, G. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lewis, Arthur
Parker, J.
Taylor Bernard (Mansfield)


Lindgren, G. S
Paten, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lipton, Lt,-Col. M
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


MacColl, J. E.
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


McGovern, J.
Porter, G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McInnes, J.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McLeavy, F.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Proctor, W. T.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Pryde, D. J.
Tomney, F.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Pursey, Cmdr. H
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reeves, J.
Viant, S. P.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Weitzman, D.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E,)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rhodes, H.
West, D. G.


Manuel, A. C.
Richards, R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon, John


Mayhew, C. P.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Messer, F.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, William
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mitchison, G. R.
Short, E. W.
Wigg, George


Moody, A. S.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, David (Neath)


Morley, R.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mort, D. L.
Slater, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Moyle, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mulley, F. W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Murray, J. D.
Snow, J. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Nally, W.
Sorensen, R. W.
Yates, V. F.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Oliver, G H.
Sparks, J. A.



Orbach, M.
Steele, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oswald, T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham. E.)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. A. Allen.


Padley, W. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J

Sir Frank Soskice: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, after the words last added, to add:
(6) If any person fails to comply with the requirements of this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine, and, if the default in respect of which he is convicted is continued after the conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence punishable as aforesaid, except that the fine to which he may be sentenced shall be a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or five pounds for each day on which the default is so continued, whichever is the greater.
I am glad to see the Solicitor-General is present, because I feel sure that he will agree with the arguments which I propose to adduce to the Committee. The purpose of the Amendment is to introduce criminal responsibility for a breach of the injunction which Clause 5 of the Bill contains. We on this side of the Committee feel considerably puzzled with the Minister's thinking here. Clause 5 sets up the machinery for consent to fresh development being given by the Board. Consent cannot be refused unless the Board is of opinion that a proposal will seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain.
What is the situation which results? Supposing a company wishes to undertake fresh development, it cannot carry out that development without the consent of the Board. That is plain and simple. Those responsible for the company will know whether they have consent or not. The Board can only refuse consent if the new development is going to be—I paraphrase the words in the subsection— highly prejudicial to the interests of the country. Unless development is going to prejudice—and not only prejudice but seriously prejudice—the country's interests in interfering with the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain, the undertaker who wishes to carry out new development is bound to get consent.
If the Board takes the view that consent shall not be given the undertaker has the right of appeal to the Minister. Therefore, if the company concerned in fresh development carries out that development without getting consent, it will be a company which, in the Board's view, is carrying out a highly prejudicial development and doing something which grossly offends against the nation's interests. Whether such an undertaking is prejudicial can be judged by the simple touchstone of whether the consent of the


Board was given, and if the consent is not given there can be no conceivable excuse for those responsible for the company embarking upon such fresh development.
We do not like this Bill at all, as we have made clear on a number of occasions, but we are doing our best to improve it. We are trying to smooth awkward edges and to make the Bill work in a sensible and efficient way, so far as it is possible to do so. When we see serious offences created by the provisions of Clause 5 we look to see what are the enforcement provisions of the Bill to prevent those offences.
All we find is the cumbrous and roundabout procedure contained in Clause 27 for obtaining an injunction in civil proceedings. If we look elsewhere in our statutory code we find that if we do more building than we are allowed to do we transgress a statute in the obvious way, and that criminal responsibility practically always ensues. Here in the Bill is a particularly serious offence, one of the most serious that a company can commit we cannot understand why the extraordinary exception should be made by which those responsible for the commission of that offence do not find themselves involved in criminal liability. That is the short case that we make against the Clause.
Hon. Members will have noticed that later on the Order Paper there is a corresponding Amendment to Clause 7. I would be out of order if I discussed that Amendment, but perhaps you would allow me the indulgence, Sir Gordon, of saying a word about it. Possibly it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed both Amendments together. I do not know whether you would allow that course. If so, I would like to address a short argument to the Committee on the matter.

The Solicitor-General: I understood that we were going to discuss both these Amendments together. They cover much the same ground, although the arguments are slightly different.

Sir F. Soskice: I am much obliged. If you will allow me to do so, Sir Gordon, I will address my argument to the Committee on that Clause as well.
Clause 7 enables the Board to impose maximum prices. If a company charges prices higher than the maximum prices authorised, it plainly transgresses the law. It has done something which is said by the law plainly and unequivocally to be forbidden. Again, for some extraordinary reason which we do not understand, criminal responsibility does not follow. With all the other provisions in our statutory code which prevent prices being charged above fixed maxima, if a maximum is exceeded, criminal responsibility follows. No doubt the SolicitorGeneral will correct me if I am wrong.
In the case of steel, if prices are charged above the permitted amount an enormous sum of money will go into the pockets of those who charge them, but somehow those who are responsible have no need to fear being brought before a criminal court. We ask the Government why this extraordinary exception is being made. I would ask the Committee to consider what the Government propose in Clause 27. They propose this: A company, knowing that it has not got permission and being under no illusion about that, can carry out a very serious and prejudicial type of development. All that is to happen is that the Board can go to the High Court and issue a writ. I suppose there will be the usual procedure—statement of claim, even the usual interlocutory procedure, particulars, and all the rest of it—and the law will take its ordinary course, lasting many months before the matter in question gets before the trial judge. Even then, no penalties are imposed.
These moneys do not have to be refunded by the judgment of the court. Those that have overcharged can keep the money in their pockets, and they can keep the money they have gained by charging those prices for many months while the proceedings are pending. It is conceivable that the judge may grant an interlocutory injunction, but that is highly speculative. When judgment is obtained there can be an appeal, and ultimately the matter may get to the House of Lords many months later still.
9.15 p.m.
Why is there to be this two-stage system of enforcement? Until an injunction is obtained those who are transgressing have nothing to fear. When the injunction is obtained, if they disobey it, of


course, they will be guilty of contempt and no doubt committed to prison, but until then they can go on and there is nothing to stop them getting in more money than they are allowed to get in, keeping that money and carrying on, if they think fit, with the development they propose.
What we propose is the following. We have taken a criminal penalty which at present appears in Clause 13. The Solicitor-General will very likely criticise me by saying that for this particularly heinous offence we have, in adopting the penalty of the Government for a much lesser offence, namely, refusing to give information, adopted far too light a penalty. If so, the hon. and learned Gentleman can change it by making the necessary alteration in the draft. However, my defence is that I have adopted the penalty which the Government have themselves imposed for a far lesser offence in Clause 13. If that is a mistake, the Solicitor-General knows how to increase the penalty and he may well think that is the correct step.
I am not suggesting that there should not also be a remedy by way of injunction. That may have its uses. It may be necessary to put it in the Bill and no doubt the Government have reasons for doing so. In our Amendment we do not propose to leave out the provision in Clause 27 for an injunction but we cannot think why these people who, in the assumed circumstances, will have committed not some light amiable transgression, a light peccadillo of some sort, but an offence which is amongst the most serious offences one could consider, should get off, so far as the criminal law is concerned, virtually scot-free.
If they refuse to give information, they are prosecuted criminally. If they do this far more serious thing of disobeying the injunction that they must not build without the permission of the Board, they can get off free and go on for months until the injunction is ultimately obtained. That seems to us a wholly illogical position. Now that the position has been pointed out to him, I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that it has slipped his vigilant eye in some way or other. We know he is heavily overburdened, and it is quite understandable, but I am sure he will be anxious to put it right now.
The only matter for controversy is whether the penalties we have proposed are sufficiently severe. I know all hon. Members dislike multiplying penalties, particularly criminal ones. Everybody dislikes it. Unfortunately they are an inevitable necessity in some cases and there can be no justification for excluding from the general code of the criminal law a really serious offence.
For those reasons I hope the SolicitorGeneral will be able to cut short the discussion by saying that he is only too ready to see the force of the arguments we have adduced and that he will readily assent to this Amendment. I feel sure that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will not seriously quarrel with him if he says he thinks the penaltles ought to be increased.

The Solicitor-General: I think it might be the desire of the Committee that I should reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman at this stage. He has delivered himself of a powerful oration and I make no complaint of the way in which he has expressed his view. With a great deal of what he has said I am in agreement, but I am not in agreement with him on the advisability of accepting this Amendment.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that I had perhaps overlooked the possibility of making failure to comply with these requirements a criminal offence. I have by no means overlooked that, but, for reasons which I propose to advance, I came to the conclusion that for a breach by a company of the requirements imposed by the Board— namely, the refusal of consent by the Board and the Company going on with the development and the breach of a maximum price fixed by the Board—the remedy of injunction was by far the most appropriate.
I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if a company flouts the Board's decision as to development, it is a serious matter.

Sir F. Soskice: Deliberately.

The Solicitor-General: Yes, deliberately. There is no dispute between us as to that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman kept on reiterating that it would be a particularly serious offence. We can all use different adjectives, but I


do not want anything that I say to be taken as inferring or suggesting that I regard deliberate disobedience to the Board's refusal of consent as constituting in any sense a light matter. As to that, we are on common ground.

Sir F. Soskice: indicated assent.

The Solicitor-General: When one comes on to enforcement—the penalty for disobedience—either on this Clause or on Clause 7, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bear in mind that it is an important principle that when criminal offences are created by statute, they should be defined in the statute.
One does not know quite what the decision of the Board might be, in this sense: The Board might say, "Yes, you can do that amount of development, but you cannot do the bit beyond." Take the case of prices: The Board will be fixing the maximum prices. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment is accepted, what it amounts to is that the House of Commons will be saying, "If you do not do what the Board tell you to do, you will be guilty of a criminal offence and subject to a heavy penalty." We will, in fact, be saying that it will be for the Board to lay down what constitutes a criminal offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, and particularly with regard to prices.

Sir F. Soskice: rose—

The Solicitor-General: May I follow on with the argument? I did not interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Particularly with regard to prices, the price control orders can come before the House and be subject to control by the House, but the exercise of the Board's discretion as to fixing maximum prices will not come before the House. It will be fixed by the Board, and that is one very powerful argument for saying that the criminal procedure here would be quite inappropriate.
Now I come to the other point on which I differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on grounds which I shall advance as shortly as I can. He has suggested that I might take the view that the penalties imposed by his Amendment are slight having regard to the apparent gravity of the offence. That view might be held, but whatever penalties are imposed here, I believe that the injunction

procedure against a company of the sort that is likely to, or which might, disobey the Board's command or refusal of the permission under the Clause, is really a much more effective procedure against a company than a prosecution in the local magistrates' court.
I entirely disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his argument that it was bound to take a considerable time before an injunction could be obtained. If a case is taken under Clause 5 where it is clear that a company is disobeying the Board, I should have thought there was very little doubt that one could get an interim injunction very speedily to stop the building or development going on. I believe from all I have seen that the injunction procedure against a corporation is an extremely effective remedy.
It can be followed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, if there is disobedience to the injunction, by committal and by sequestration of the assets of the company. It is a powerful remedy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may disagree—I dare say there is a great deal of disagreement all round—but I believe, if one is considering what is the most effective sanction against a big corporation, that the injunction procedure is much more effective than the risk of a prosecution in the local magistrates' court, whatever penalty is imposed.

Mr. Mikardo: It might not be a large corporation, especially under Clause 7.

The Solicitor-General: If it is not, the same argument may apply.
I believe that an injunction is much more effective. One has had instances of it, which the hon. Gentleman may have seen recently. Steps can be taken, I think, in the magistrates' court regarding the pollution of rivers. The injunction procedure in the case of polluting a river seems to bring about very satisfactory results very often where the person guilty of pollution has the injunction placed upon him.
Whilst views among lawyers may differ on this point, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept—as I am sure he will—that it was after most careful consideration, and in the belief that this injunction procedure will be effective in the first instance to deal with any


breach either of the provisions of Clause 5 or of maximum prices fixed by the Board under Clause 7, that the Bill was drafted in the form in which it now appears.
If we try to make it a criminal offence, particularly in regard to prices, we get into the difficulty that the prices would be fixed by the Board without any control by Parliament and what would determine the constituent features of the criminal offence would be determined without any recourse to the House. That may be an argument which does not appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is an argument which should be considered. If we are to create fresh criminal offences—and we have created many in the last few years—I think it desirable that all the ingredients of the offence should be clearly defined in the Act of Parliament which creates that particular crime.
I hope I have answered all the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am not sufficiently optimistic to think that I have satisfied him on all of them, but I trust that I have at least satisfied him that it is because we regard the injunction procedure as likely to be speedy and effective, followed by adequate sanctions if the injunction is disobeyed, that we have adopted that procedure rather than the criminal procedure for the enforcement of these provisions in the Bill, [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not have both?"] I was just going to add, in conclusion that for the reasons I have given we are against criminal procedure where the Board lays down what the prices have to be. Therefore, I do not think it would be right or proper to marry the two, having regard to the fact that the offences will resuIt from disobedience of the Board's mandate and not disobedience of something defined by this House.

Mr. Mitchison: Of course I accept the statement of the Solicitor-General that he believes an injunction is the best remedy here. I would only reply to him in the words used on a famous occasion by the Duke of Wellington:
If you believe that, you would believe anything.
I think I have good reason for my reply. Let us begin with the injunction and see what happens. I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman agree—as

obviously we must all agree—that here we are dealing, or at any rate may be dealing, with a very serious matter. It is something which must be prejudicial to the common good, something which must cause very considerable damage to the community, damage which will be reflected in the lives and fortunes of other citizens, as is always, or practically always, the case with crime of any sort.
9.30 p.m.
In this particular case, the person who has committed this grave offence, for offence I call it on moral grounds, is to be exempted from any criminal proceedings, and is to be brought, after such delays as the law may think fit in the case—for, after all, an interim injunction is a discretionary remedy, and one cannot count on it—at one time or another, before the court, and what is to happen to him? He is to be told: "Sir, you have damaged the community; you have injured your fellow men; you have done the most unpatriotic thing, and you have done it consciously, and you knew what you were doing."

The Solicitor-General: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me? Does he appreciate that one can get an injunction if someone threatens or intends, even though they have not actually done it?

Mr. Mitchison: Let us be perfectly clear about this, because it is a serious matter. I am dealing with the case in which an iron and steel producer has already deliberately flouted the Board.

The Solicitor-General: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman really suggesting that one of these big schemes turned down by the Board would be completed without the Board knowing that it had even been started?

Mr. Mitchison: If, in fact, this is never going to happen, I do not think that the learned Solicitor-General need be so concerned about a criminal penalty for something which is never going to take place. I am assuming that, when there are provisions in a Bill even for an injunction in respect of something which has been done, this kind of provision is meant seriously, even by a Tory SolicitorGeneral, and is meant to have some sort of relation to the facts, and is not a mere figment of fancy. On that assumption, I proceed with what I was saying.
I assume that this offence has been committed. If it is never going to be committed, if the whole iron and steel industry is to be canonised and made incapable of committing an offence, we need not go any further. But let us assume that an offence has been committed. These people are brought before the court, and they are told: "My dear sirs, you have committed this very serious offence. You have damaged your country, injured your fellow citizens; you have done this, that and the other, and we are all agreed on the seriousness of it, but, as regards all that you have done, nothing whatever is going to happen to you."
There can, of course, be no damages, because the Board has not suffered damage. The damage is done to the community, and to the fellow citizens of these people, and it is the kind of damage for which, as a rule, there is a criminal penalty, but all that they are told is, "Do not do it again, and here is an injunction to say that you shall not." I say that to suggest that as a method of preventing the repetition of an offence which everybody can see was going on, without the faintest quality of punishment about it whatever, is a most remarkable form of special pleading.
Let us see what, in fact, is being suggested. Let us take a price matter. At one time or another, under successive Governments, we have controlled a number of commodities, and in this country the small man, whether he be a butcher or shopkeeper of another kind, is hauled up before the court and punished because he has broken some regulations about the prices of food. He does not get the benefit of the rather specialist advocacy which we have heard tonight when, in fact, he has done it and there is no doubt about it. There appears to be a degree of certainty about the nature of joints of meat which does not attach to the nature of pieces of iron and steel. I really cannot believe that kind of thing. Personally, I find it much easier to recognise an ingot when I see it than to go into the niceties of a butcher's description about particular kinds of meat, or trade descriptions of various other kinds of food.
What is the real distinction between the two cases? Let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what it is. The

butcher is usually a small man, and the shopkeeper is usually a small man; but in this case the people with whom one would have to deal for contraventions of price orders would not be small men. They would be big men, very big men, because a small man is unfortunately not able at the present time to start up a modern steel works.
As far as I can see, the only distinction between the offender in the one case and the offender in the other is a question of the size of the offender and, possibly, a corresponding distinction about the size of his crime. The big offender with the big crime escapes unpunished, and is told in the quiet seclusion of a civil court not to do it again—there is no penalty for the past because that is what an injunction comes to—whereas, at the same time, the little man with the little offence is hauled before the police court near where he lives and is punished as a crook.
Surely we cannot stand for that kind of thing. Let the Government make what distinctions they like between one type of breach of the provisions of the price regulations and another; let them adjust the penalty as they think fit, because it may well be that it is not serious enough. Perhaps they would like to consider the corporal punishment Bill which is coming on in a day or two. There are all sorts of possibilities.
I am not concerned with that, but to let off the big man scot-free and to punish the small man who breaks other price regulations is a scandal and a disgrace to this House and to the party which is prepared to stand for it. There may be some differentiation to be made, but that is an entirely different matter. If the Solicitor-General were to get up and say that the point is rather a difficult one and that he would like to consider it more fully because special provision may have to be made, we would not object.
I turn now to the provision about projects. The parallel is perfectly obvious. There are building projects at present which have exactly the same degree of uncertainty surrounding them and which are in every possible respect exactly comparable to what is going to happen in this case. If one were to hunt about for it, one might be able to find some subtle distinction of logic or hair splitting between the one case and the other.
But, after all, we are sent here by ordinary people who have scant patience when dealing with a lot of hair splitting as between one case and another, and who see the private man who breaks the building regulations being punished now and who have seen him being punished for a long time in the past in every case in which he is caught. But when it comes to the big people, though their breaches of the regulations will be far easier to detect because they will be doing something which the Board has expressly refused them the right to do, they will see also that in those circumstances the big people will not be punished.
We are all interested in preserving the decency of this place and the decency of democratic Government in this country. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite must themselves know what the ordinary man would say both as regards price contraventions and what I would call the project contraventions. He will simply say that the Tory Party are this time looking after their friends a little too obviously. He will say that if this involved anyone but the big boys in the iron and steel industry there would be criminal penalties for both these matters in this Bill, and that it is nothing short of scandalous that they were omitted in the first instance and are now refused.

The Solicitor-General: I should like to say a few words in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), because he made a powerful speech and I always listen with the greatest attention to all the arguments which he advances. He started off by saying that under Clause 5 of this Bill, as it now stands, there would be no remedy if, in fact, someone completed a scheme. He said that if the scheme were carried out nothing could be done except the obtaining of an injunction. That is quite true, but one advantage which he has overlooked is that the Board can step in directly a big scheme starts and obtain an injunction then. They do not have to wait until it is completed.
The hon. and learned Member also talked a great deal about how he could tell the difference between ingots and pieces of meat. I am very glad that he can. But when he seeks to compare the scheme in this Bill with price controls imposed under legislation passed by the

House of Commons, fixed by Orders against which Prayers can be moved in the House—price controls imposed upon butchers and shopkeepers—with a scheme set out in this Bill, then I say that he is comparing things which are completely dissimilar.
Price controls fixed by Statutory Instruments and Regulations create criminal offences under which small and big people may, if they infringe them, be rendered liable to criminal conviction. There is no distinction there; and here if there is a breach by a small man of a price fixed by the Board, he is in no greater risk and liable to no greater penalty or to a penalty of a different character than a big concern. In each case the remedies here suggested are the remedies of injunction against the accused, or the guilty person if I may use that term, large or small. Therefore, I suggest to the hon. and learned Member that really it is not right to compare the system set up by this Bill, which has as a precedent something which was contained in the Monopolies Act, with price control set up by Statutory Instrument or statute.
Then the hon. and learned Member talks about letting these people off scot-free. I do not at all agree with him about that. I believe that this injunction procedure will prove in fact far more satisfactory against both the big and small infringers of prices fixed by the Board than any proceedings in the criminal courts.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I cannot refrain from pointing out that the Solicitor-General in his last few words made a completely illusory analogy. He used as a comparison the penalties which now operate in the field of food prices, in relation to criminal acts such as charging prices which are higher than those permitted under Orders laid down by Parliament. In doing so he made a comparison between the person who commits the small offence and the person who commits the big offence, and he implied that both are treated under the same procedure.
9.45 p.m.
He then went on to say, "The small man in the iron and steel industry will be treated in exactly the same way as the big man, if and when either commits a breach of the price arrangements or


the building extension arrangements." We say that offences against food prices and offences for which punishment is contemplated in the Bill should both be treated as criminal offences and punished accordingly.
It is obvious to anyone who considers it that the Solicitor-General's statement is not an explanation or a justification of Government policy; it is an entirely false analogy, running away from the

facts which are contemplated in this Measure. I suggest that there is only one course to be taken by hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and that is to go into the Division Lobby to express utter contempt for the attitude of the Government in this matter.

Question put. "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217: Noes, 234.

Division No. 91.]
AYES
[9.46 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Freeman, John (Watford)
Moody, A. S.


Adams, Richard
Gibson, C. W.
Morgan,. Dr. H. B. W.


Albu, A. H.
Glanville, James
Morley, R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mort. D. L.


Awbary, S. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Moyle, A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grentfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, J. D.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Nally, W.


Bartley, P.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bence, C. R.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hamilton, W. W.
Orbach, M.


Benson, G.
Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.


Beswick, F.
Hargreaves, A.
Padley, W. E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paget, R. T.


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, S.
Palmer, A. M. F


Blenkinsop, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles


Blyton, W. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Pargitar, G. A.


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hobson, C. R.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Brockway, A. F.
Holman, P.
Popplewell, E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Houghton, Douglas
Porter, G.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pryde D. J


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Callaghan, L. J
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reeves, J


Carmichael, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Champion, A. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Chapman, W. D.
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Richards, R.


Clunie, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Coldrick, W.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collick, P. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Ross, William


Craddock, George (Bradferd, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Short, E. W.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham. S)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Keenan, W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


de Freitas. Geoffrey
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)


Deer, G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwiok)
Snow, J. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W


Dodds, N. N.
Lindgre[...], G. S
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Donnelly, D. L.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Sparks, J. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
MacColl, J. E
Steele, T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. [...] C.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Edelman, M.
McInnes, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McLeavy, F.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)



MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Swingler, S. T.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Fienburgh, W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Finch, H. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Follick, M.
Mellish. R. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Foot, M. M.
Messer, F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, F.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison. G. R.
Turner-Samuels, M




Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wallace, H. W.
Wigg, George
Wyatt, W. L.


Weitzman, D.
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, V. F.


Wells, William (Walsall)
Williams, David (Neath)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


West, D. G.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)



Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. A. Allen


White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Foster, John
Markham, Major S. F.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mellor, Sir John


Arbuthnot, John
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Molson, A. H. E.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Godber, J. B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Asshelon, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Gough, C. F. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gower, H. R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Baldwin, A. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Nicholls, Harmar


Banks, Col. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Barber, Anthony
Grimond, J.
Nicholson, Nigel (Bournemouth, [...].)


Barlow, Sir John
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Baxter, A. B.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Odey, G. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.


Birch, Nigel
Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Bishop, F. P.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Black, C. W.
Heath, Edward
Perkins, W. R. D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Bossom, A. C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Braine, B. R.
Holland-Martin, C. J
Powell, J. Enoch


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Holt, A. F.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Hope, Lord John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Profumo, J. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Redmayne, M.


Bullard, D. G.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Renton, D. L. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hurd, A R.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Robertson, Sir David


Campbell, Sir David
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)


Carr, Robert
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Robson-Brown, W.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hyton-Foster, H. B. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roper, Sir Harold


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard



Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Russell, R. S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Cole, Norman
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Colegate, W. A.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Cooper, Son. Ldr. Albert
Lambert, Hon. G
Scott, R. Donald


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shepherd, William


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Leather, E. H. C.
Snadden, M. WcN.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Speir, R. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Deedes, W. F.
Linstead, H. N.
Stevens, G. P.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Longden, Gilbert
Storey, S.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Low, A. R. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Summers, G. S.


Drewe, C.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Teeling, W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Duthie, W. S.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Tilney, John


Fell, A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Turner, H. F. L.


Finlay, Graeme
Maclean, Fitzroy
Turton, R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vosper, D. F.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Wade, D. W.


Fort, R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)







Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Wills, G.


Walker-Smith, D. C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Wood, Hon. R


Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)



Watkinson, H. A
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Sir H. Butcher and Mr. Kaberry.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(DUTY OF PRODUCERS TO COMPLY WITH BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM PRICES.)

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, at the beginning, to insert:
Subject to the following provisions of this Act.
This is only a drafting Amendment.

Mr. J. Freeman: Although it is only drafting, I think that we are entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain exactly what it means. It is a little obscure.

Mr. Low: It means what it says: subject to the following provisions of this Act; and it is put in here to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the powers in Clause 7 are subject to the following provisions. As the Committee knows, there is a new Clause to be moved —[Application of price provisions to castings and forgings.]—and there is Clause 8, which concerns the use of the powers in this Clause, and I think the reader's attention should be drawn to that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out "Board," and to insert "Minister."
The purpose of this Amendment is to substitute the Minister for the Board as the authority, and the sole authority, for fixing iron and steel prices. It seems to us that one of the worst features of this Bill is that it keeps on dividing authority and responsibility. It is the first essential of any good organisation, whether in industry or elsewhere, that responsibility for executive action should be clearly defined. We find that this is not so in this Bill; that it is exceedingly deficient in this respect. As we shall be discussing later, this Bill contains provisions which divide authority in the most remarkable way. In many matters responsibility is divided between

six bodies, the company concerned, the Iron and Steel Federation, the Board, the Minister of Supply, the Agency, and the Treasury. We leave that for a later Clause, when we discuss the position of the Agency, but what is perfectly clear is that here the very important responsibility for deciding who should fix maximum prices rests both with the Board and the Minister.
We think that that is wrong, and we cannot think why the Minister inserted this very strange provision in the Bill, unless there was some inter-Departmental or inter-Ministerial argument as to who should have this important power, the Board or the Minister, and finally a compromise was reached that they should both have it, that the Board should first fix prices and then, if the Minister or Parliament did not like the Board's prices, the Minister could step in, cancel the prices fixed by the Board, and start imposing his own. We think that that is a ridiculous situation, and we say that there should not be two people responsible for this; the responsibility should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament.
It seems to us that the Minister has chosen the worst of both worlds, because by the present position he will not escape responsibility to Parliament, if any prices fixed by the Board are considered unreasonable. Parliament will be able to question him about it. Any hon. Member will be able, under Clause 8, to get up and ask him why he has not fixed the prices as he was empowered to do and will be able to cross-question him and make a row. The Minister will presumably be able to say, "prior responsibility is on the Board," and will be able to use the Board as an excuse. That seems to us to be an indefensible situation, an improper one and structurally a very ill-thought out one which will lead to considerable differences.
10.0 p.m.
It may be argued—and very likely the Minister will argue this—that under our nationalisation Bill the Corporation were given the authority to


fix prices, and it may be suggested that, as we gave that authority to the Corporation, it is only proper that the Board should have it now. But that argument is unsound because the status of the Corporation is entirely different from that of the Board which is to be set up.
The Corporation were particularly entrusted to look after the interests of the public, the national interest and the consumers'. The Board's job, as we know from a number of speeches made by the Minister, is not to look after the national or public interest. That, we are told, is the job of the Government and of the Minister of Supply in particular, and that is the reason why we say that the Minister of Supply should accept that responsibility and should have the onus of fixing prices which he thinks necessary.
I should like to read to the Committee the general duties which were given to the Corporation, from which it will be seen that they are very different from those being entrusted to the Board. We said, in Section 3 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949:
It shall be the general duty of the Corporation so to exercise their powers as—
(a) to promote the efficient and economical supply of the products of the activities specified in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act, and to secure that those products are available in such quantities, and are of such types, qualities and sizes, and are available at such prices, as may seem to the Corporation best calculated to satisfy the reasonable demands of the persons who use those products for manufacturing purposes and to further the public interest in all respects;
When we sought to move an Amendment to the present Bill to ensure that the Board should carry out their duty, bearing the public interest or the national interest in mind, that Amendment was rejected, and we were told that that was not to be the responsibility of the Board. We regret that decision but we must accept it.
The difference is this; it was the job of the Corporation to look after the public interest—that is what it was there for. Therefore, there was the argument— a doubtful one even then—that the Corporation which was to be set up to look after the public interest and the interest of the consumers should be entrusted with the authority for fixing maximum prices. I was in some doubt at the time whether it would not be better

for the Minister to have those powers. We decided, on balance, that it was right that the Corporation should have them.
Today, if we have a Board set up whose duty is limited to looking after the efficiency of the iron and steel industry and which told that it is not its duty and that it cannot and should not look after the public interest—that that is the responsibility of the Minister as only the Minister and Government can do that—then we say that it is right, where the national interest is so much involved, for the Government and the Minister to decide what the maximum prices should be and not the Board. Dual responsibility between the Board and the Minister is all wrong.
There are one or two further arguments which I should like to put before the Committee in support of this Amendment. Obviously, the Board, as it is to be set up, is bound to be biased in favour of high prices. It is going to have on it people definitely representative of industry, some consumers' representatives, it is true, and people drawn from both sides of the iron and steel industry, but it is plain I think that this Board which is told that it is not its duty to consider the national interest will be biased in favour of high prices for the iron and steel industry.
A board which has that bias will not command the respect or confidence of the consumers of iron and steel products. It is not the slightest good saying that this is all right because there will be on the Board a couple of folk who are supposed to represent consumer interests. It will not work out like that. Having on the Board somebody from the shipbuilding industry will not in the slightest satisfy those in the automobile industry. Having someone from the automobile industry on the Board will not satisfy those in the railways or the mines, who are very large consumers of iron and steel. If someone from the Transport Commission representing the railways is on the Board, that will not satisfy those in the building industry who are also large consumers. If there are representatives of the building industry on the Board, that will not satisfy the boiler makers. So I could go on. A couple of consumers' representatives on the Board will not satisfy consumers as a whole.
In this matter, where the national interest must be paramount, where all factors must be taken into account, and where the prices which are charged may, as we argued earlier, seriously affect employment in this country, enable industry to export or to lose its export market, and have profound effects in all parts of the country, the body which the Minister admits is the sole one which can take the general national interest into account, must be the one to decide what the level of prices of its products should be.
This would enable us to obviate the difficulty into which we got on the last Amendment. We had then the argument of the Solicitor-General in defence of the injunction procedure instead of criminal procedure. The Solicitor-General said that the prices will be fixed by the Board and not by Parliament and, therefore, it is 'ridiculous that there should be criminal procedure. All that would be swept aside if the Minister brought orders before the House, as he does now, after taking all matters into account and fixing prices.
What happens now about price fixing? AIthough the Corporation was given the power—we thought that, on balance, it was right to do so, although there was some doubt—it is the Minister who still does it. Both I and my successor felt it right that this grave responsibility should rest on the Minister, who is responsible to Parliament, rather than on the Board. How are prices fixed? The steel industry, through the Iron and Steel Federation, come to the Ministry and says "We really think there must be increases in prices on certain ranges," and it puts up its case. The case is considered independently by the Minister's advisers, and accepted or rejected what usually happens is that it is accepted in part and rejected in part. The Minister's decision is final.
The Ministry may consult certain big consuming interests, and may not be a bit persuaded, or may be fully persuaded, by the arguments put forward by Steel House. There is bound to be a bias on the part of manufacturers of products who are asking for higher prices. I suggest that the Board is likely to be very much influenced by the demands put forward by the steel industry for higher

prices, and those demands will not be so carefully scrutinised, and objection taken to them, by expert independent advisers as happens now when the Minister, advised by civil servants, examines the demands for higher prices which are put forward by Steel House.
For all those reasons, we say that this authority should be taken out of the hands of the Board. It complicates the situation. There is a dual authority. The Board cannot be nationally responsible, as the Minister has told us. The Government is nationally responsible for the welfare of industry and the standard of life of our people. Parliament should be able to challenge prices which it thinks are inappropriate. I do not think there are any politics in it. The reasons we put forward are purely technical. It would seriously improve this Measure and make it far more workable if the Minister were prepared to make himself fully responsible for the prices of iron and steel products.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: This Amendment recalls in many ways an earlier Amendment which we discussed and which would have given the Minister general powers of direction. I ventured in that debate to argue that, although in theory the Minister might well act in the national interest, in practice the Minister, who is that rather incalculable creature, a political animal, might well act in political interests. That danger is much greater in relation to prices than in relation to almost any other subject.
Consider what might happen. We live in an era of inflation. Prices are rising. Some prices are controlled, others are not. The steel industry would find its costs rising and, under this Amendment, it would go to the Minister and indicate that costs have risen by x per cent. and ask for an increase in price by x per cent. The Minister before granting that increase would consult his Ministerial colleagues, and it is perfectly understandable that his colleagues might say to him, "Look here, this is a very serious step. If we do this then the cost of living goes up, and that rather pertinacious gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall, will ask awkward questions in the House of Commons." On purely political grounds it is conceivable that the demand would be turned down or, at any rate, toned down.
This could happen, and if I myself were not a political animal of a certain colour, I would assert that it has happened under political administrations of more than one colour. That is why my bias lies, in the normal run of things, towards giving the price determining powers to the Board, which will come to its decision on purely economic grounds. I concede, as was conceded during the course of the afternoon on an earlier Amendment, that noneconomic considerations are to be taken into account. There is, for instance, the matter of full employment, and we contend that the person to take these other considerations into account should be the Minister. We contend that the Board should take the economic factors into account and the Minister the noneconomic factors. The right hon. Gentleman objects to this division of functions. It is just because it is a division of functions that it seems to me to be the right solution.
Earlier we discussed development—the economic factors and the noneconomic factors. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to entrust the decision on both these factors to the Board. One might well work against the other, and had we accepted that earlier Amendment by the Opposition on the matter of full employment we should have been giving to the Board a self-contradictory direction. It is to avert that element of contradiction that we say it is entirely right to separate the two things—the economic to the Board, the non-economic to the Minister. Otherwise, were the Minister to take the decision on both grounds we should never know what, in fact, was happening—whether the increase was granted on economic grounds or noneconomic grounds. Once we depart blindly and ignorantly from the rule of economics, it seems to me that we are heading for economic disaster. To avert that this Amendment, in my opinion, should be rejected.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: As the Bill is drafted, responsibility for preventing excessive prices is placed, in the first instance, upon the Board. Clause 8, however, gives the Minister power to override the Board if he thinks it necessary in the national interest. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) made

some play of the fact that there was divided responsibility. I agree with him that, in an efficient organisation, the division of responsibility should be clearly defined, but I do not agree that all responsibility and authority has to be placed in the hands of one body and that it is always wrong to have reserve powers resting with some other body. I will say a little more about that in reply to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman.
The Bill is not the result of disagreement between any of my right hon. Friends and myself; it is the result of careful thought. In some respects we did not hesitate to study the Act which the right hon. Gentleman himself produced in 1949. In many places he will see whole paragraphs taken almost directly out of his Measure. He referred to certain points of resemblance, no doubt in the hope of disarming my criticism.
The Amendment proposes to take the price-fixing powers away from the Board and to give them to the Minister. I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt this line. The price-fixing power is one of the principal instruments of the Board in securing the efficient and adequate production of iron and steel. The Opposition have on several occasions complained that the Board has not enough teeth, but this Amendment seeks to extract such teeth as it has got. That seems highly inconsistent.

Mr. Jack Jones: These are the wisdom teeth.

Mr. Sandys: The Board certainly will have wisdom teeth, but wisdom teeth are not always very useful. It is some of the main molars that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to extract on this occasion. This would very greatly impair the influence of the Board and its ability to discharge its duties effectively. To transfer price-fixing powers to the Minister would have another serious disadvantage—we believe this will not be disputed—in that it would tend to bring steel prices needlessly into the centre of political controversy.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: For the last seven years they have not been.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman created enough controversy a year


ago on this subject. If steel prices are to be fixed in normal times—I am not talking about times of shortage and of steel rationing—by the Government of the day, it is inevitable they will become an issue of party politics. That is not the right atmosphere in which complicated technical problems like price-fixing should be considered. We think it far better to entrust this responsibility to an independent body outside the political arena.
The Board, which will include producers, consumers, trade unionists and independent members, will be well qualified to arrive at a fair and balanced view on this question. We believe that its decisions will normally be accepted without question both by the producing and the consuming industries concerned. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall said, the Minister will not escape responsibility before Parliament and it is not our intention that he should do so. Since the Minister will have a reserve power to override the Board on prices, should he consider it necessary in the national interest, Parliament will have the right at any time to question the Minister in regard to the exercise or non-exercise of his powers under Clause 8.
My belief is that Parliament will not expect the Minister to override the Board unless there is evidence that something is seriously wrong with the prices fixed by the Board. In that case Parliament will be able to hold the Minister accountable for steel prices every bit as much as it could if this Amendment were adopted. It will not in any way alter the accountability of the Minister to Parliament should the Board fail in its duty but as I have said, I do not think Parliament will normally expect the Minister to interfere. In fact, it would be surprised and displeased if the Minister constantly interfered in details of the Board's performance of its duties.
Parliament would, however, expect the Minister to interfere if, say, a scandal arose or if it appeared that the Board had failed to discharge its duties.
I am surprised that the Opposition should adopt this line which is so completely different from that in the 1949 Act. The right hon. Gentleman tried

to say that it was quite a another matter to give price-fixing powers to the Corporation, because conditions were different. They were indeed. The 1949 Act created conditions of monopoly under State ownership where it is all the more important that some effective power should be held by the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman took pride in having divested himself of responsibility for price control, but I do not think he was quite correct in that. He has criticised our proposal on the ground that it represents divided responsibility. I submit to him that the 1949 Act divided responsibility even more than the present Bill. The primary responsibility rested with the Corporation, as in this Bill the primary responsibility rests with the Board. Under the 1949 Act the Minister, apart from his general right of giving a direction to the Corporation, had the right to intervene on prices, if asked to do so by a third body—the Consumers' Council.
Under this Bill, the responsibility is, in the first instance, placed upon the Board, with a reserve power to the Minister. Under the right hon. Gentleman's Act, we had the responsibility in the first instance placed upon the Corporation, and then we had a kind of Siamese-twin arrangement between the right hon. Gentleman and the Consumers' Council; they together had a reserve power to intervene. A more divided and more doubtful arrangement it is hard to imagine.
Instead of having a fairly clear division of responsibility as between the Board and the Minister, there was this extraordinary arrangement under the 1949 Act. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can criticise us for creating divided responsibility.
Hon. Members will, therefore, see that we are providing more effective safeguards —this is important, and the point was made by the right hon. Gentleman for Ministerial and Parliamentary control over steel prices than was provided in the 1949 Act. Yet at the same time we are delegating this responsibility in the first instance to an independent body outside the political arena. We feel that these are important advantages, and I hope that, on further reflection, the party opposite will not press this Amendment.

Question put, "That Board ' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 214.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[10.28 p.m.


Aitkin, W. T
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Nicholls, Harmer


Alport, C. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Gough, C. F. H
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gower, H. R.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Arbuthnot, John
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nugent, G. R. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Grimond, J.
Odey, G. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Ormesby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr, Capt L. P. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Banks, Col. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Perkins, W. R. D


Barlow, Sir John
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Baxter, A. B.
Hay, John
Peyton, J. W. W.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Heald, Sir Lionel
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heath, Edward
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bennett, Sic Peter (Edgbaston)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Birch, Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Profumo, J. D.


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Black, C. W.
Holt, A. F.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hope, Lord John
Redmayne, M.


Bossom, A. C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Renton, D. L. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Robertson, Sir David


Braine, B. R.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Robson-Brown, W


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W. H.
Hurd, A. R.
Rodgers, Jahn (Sevenoaks)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hutchison, Lt..Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Russell, R. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Ryder, Capt R. E. D.


Bullard, D. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Scott, R. Donald


Campbell, Sir David
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr R


Carr, Robert
Kaberry, D.
Shepherd, William


Carson, Hon. E.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerr, H. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Churohill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Snadden, W. McN


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Lambton, Viscount
Spearman, A. C. M


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speir, R. M.


Cole, Norman
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Colegate, W. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. R K.
Stevens, G. P.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Leather, E. H. C.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Stoddart-Scott, Col M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Storey, S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Crouch, R. F.
Linstead, H. N.
Summers, G. S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Teeling, W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Davidson, Viscountess
Low, A. R. W.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr R. (Croydon, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Tilney, John


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Turner, H. F. L


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, R. H.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vosper, D. F


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Dugdale, RI. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Erroll, F. J.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Watkinson, H. A


Fell, A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Finlay, Graeme
Markham, Major S. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Fisher, Nigel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Marples, A. E.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Fort, R.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wills, G.


Foster, John
Mellor, Sir John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
MoIxon, A. H. E.
Wood, Hon. R.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas



Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Hale, Leslie
Pannell, Charles


Adams, Richard
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Albu, A. H.
Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hannan, W.
Paton, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hargreaves, A.
Pearson, A


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Awbery, S. S.
Hastings, S.
Porter, G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Baird, J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Proctor, W. T


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Herbison, Miss M.
Pryde, D. J.


Bartley, P.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Purley, Cmdr. H.


Bence, C. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Reeves, J.


Bann, Wedgwood
Holman, P.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Beswick, F.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Richards, R.


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.


Blenkinsop, A
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, W. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Short, E. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Janner, B.
Shurmer, P. L. E


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Snow, J. W.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Soskice, Rt, Hon. Sir Frank


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd, G. R
Keenan, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Coldrick, W.
Kenyon, C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Go!lick, P. H.
King, Dr. H. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Swingler, S. T.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lewis, Arthur
Sylvester, G. O.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lindgren, G. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacColl, J. E
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McGovern, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdeen)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McInnes, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


de Freilas, Geoffrey
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Delargy, H. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tomney, F.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mainwaring, W H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Brdmwich).
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Viant, S. P.


Edelman, M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wallace, H. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Manuel, A. C
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mayhew, C. P.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mellish, R. J.
West, D. G.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Messer, F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeldon, W. E.


Ewart, R.
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs, Eirene (E. Flint)


Fienburgh, W.
Moody, A. S.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Finch, H. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morley, R.
Wigg, George


Follick, M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, M. M.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, David (Neath)


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rev. Llewelyn (Abertillery)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Murray, J. D.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gibson, C. W.
Nally, W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Glanville, James
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Orbach, M.
Wyatt, W. L.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn, Arthur (Wakefield)
Oswald, T.
Yates, V. F.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Padley, W. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Paget, R. T.



Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Popplewell


It being after Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order, left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.


Question put, and agreed to.

ALLOTMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir H. Butcher.]

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: This House is well aware of the fact that the allotment holders of this country have produced, are producing and intend to go on producing a great deal of valuable food for the hungry people of this land. They made a very great effort during the war in the "Dig for Victory" campaign, and they are now continuing to produce food for their own domestic consumption.
I am sure everyone in this House also realises that every ton of food which we grow at home saves a ton being bought overseas, and the Chancellor would be the first person to encourage the allotment holders of this country to go on producing as much food as they can in order to save paying for it overseas. This food production is an entirely voluntary effort on the part of these diggers of the soil. It does not strain the resources of our manpower in any way, and, what is more, the food they produce is fresh food, valuable food and food good for human consumption, and a welcome alternative to the tinned food of which we get far too much even in the average country cottage at the present time.
It is also a very healthy pastime; it provides an open-air, out-of-doors life, and doctors from time to time prescribe allotment cultivation as a cure for nervous diseases and other ailments. It is also a great recreation, for one's mind is at rest on the allotment, and, what with the food produced, the heaIth that is given, and the recreation obtained, I am certain that all hon. Members would wish to encourage the allotment diggers in every way they can.
I am glad to see that the Government are encouraging them, and doing a great deal for them. The Government have given a grant to the National Allotments Association, but they do not want to go on giving that grant for ever. They think that the Association would be better off if it were self-supporting, and that is what the Association members themselves

think. But I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not be too keen to take that grant away just at present, because at the moment this society is having a difficuIt time. They have just taken on the work which used to be done by the village produce associations and are trying to stretch their arms out into the rural districts more than before. They have important work to do and need a little Government assistance for the time being.
Now I should like to explain that, as well as vegetables, livestock are reared on allotments; not on all, because, among other reasons, this depends on local by-laws, but it should be encouraged as much as it can be, and here I am glad that the Government intend to de-ration feedingstuffs. For this will have an enormous effect on the amount of pigs. poultry, rabbits, and even bees, which can be kept on allotments. The Government have also helped by giving a fertiliser subsidy, and they were careful to see that allotment holders could take advantage of that.
The Government have given great encouragement, but I want to say, having praised the Parliamentary Secretary for all that he has done in the last few months. that there are still dogs worrying livestock on allotments. Dogs also go and dig up seed-beds just sown on allotments, and during the war it was deemed right and necessary that a Defence Regulation should be made to discourage this. Allotment holders were able to put up notices giving a warning that a penalty of £5 or so would be imposed on the owners of dogs causing damage; and, accordingly, dogs were kept on leads. That Regulation has been withdrawn and, I think, quite rightly, because it is wrong that we should deal with a criminal offence by way of delegated legislation. In the argument for getting rid of it, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said it was no use putting up such notices because dogs could not read. I think that perhaps that was said in rather a frivolous way, but he also added that it was intended to protect war-time allotments which are a rapidly diminishing quantity.
Those allotments are still going on, and in another place at the present time there is a Bill for the purpose of keeping going some 35,000 temporary war-time allotments. He also said that dogs can be


dealt with under the law of trespass, but to invoke that is a costly procedure, and it is very difficult to get a conviction in that way. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture has stated that he has no records that there have been any convictions under it, but I imagine that the answer is really that no records have been kept; because I personally know of 167 convictions and there may have been a considerable number more than that. The Government were quite right in not dealing with this under a Defence Regulation, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary now to consider what he will do following the abolition of the Regulation.
It is also very important that we should grow more fruit. Not nearly enough fresh fruit is eaten in this country. The growing of raspberries and strawberries on allotments should be encouraged. In most cases they would be grown by people who cannot afford to pay the high prices which are charged in the shops for these luscious berries. I know that apples are not encouraged in allotments because the trees sprawl all over the place, but with the provision of cordons more could be grown and the more apple growing is encouraged the better.
How are we to encourage people to grow more fruit to give us better health? The answer is to provide more sugar for jam-making. I hope that I am not asking for the impossible. The position is very difficult at the moment, but I hope that my words will sink in so deep tonight that when, as I am enormously confident will happen, the Government de-ration sugar, they will bear my words in mind and de-ration it quickly so as to encourage allotment holders to grow more fruit so that the housewife can make more jam.
The allotment holders have a number of grouses. There is still a shortage of allotments in certain parts of the country. I suggest that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should give a clear directive on this subject. There are cases where land has been scheduled for allotments under area planning schemes but the plans have not matured. One does not know why. There is something wrong somewhere. Under Defence Regulation 51, allotments were laid out on re-

quisitioned land during the war. That Regulation has been renewed, but I understand that no circular has been sent to local authorities this year to inform them of the continuance of the Regulation. It is important that local authorities should realise the need to provide allotments. I should be interested to know also whether the Minister of Agriculture has made quite sure that new town sehemes will provide ample space for allotments.
The advisory service which was provided for allotment holders in the past was a very good and complete service, but it is now part of the National Agricultural Advisory Service and I am told that those responsible for that service spend most of their time on the large commercial growers and leave the small allotment holders in the hands of the education authorities. That is not entirely satisfactory. Will the Minister see to it that small allotment holders receive as much good advice as do the large commercial holders?
The leasing of land by local councils to societies has been done with conspicuous success for the past 50 years, but Section 67 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, did not re-enact the provision which enabled this type of leasing to be continued. I was a Member of the Committee which dealt with the Bill and I take as much of the blame as anyone else for having neglected to ensure that that provision was re-enacted. It was not re-enacted, and the result is that local councils can let land to individuals but not to societies, though I believe that the law is being broken in many cases. I hope that the Government will do something in the near future to put this matter right.
Section 14 of the Allotments Act, 1922, lays down that representatives of allotment holders are entitled to one-third of the seats on statutory allotment committees. The qualifications laid down under that Act are that the persons must be experienced in the management and cultivation of allotment gardens and representative of the interests of occupiers of allotment gardens. In many cases these seats are given to defeated councillors—I suppose in order to give them something to do—and to trades and labour councils who are not even allot-


ment holders. When complaint is made to the Minister of Agriculture, no satisfaction is ever obtained. He says it is in the hands of local authorities and that he has no power to intervene. But the Minister of Agriculture is the Minister responsible for the working of this Act and he can surely bring pressure to bear on the local authorities to see that these representatives, with one-third of the seats on the statutory allotment committees, are carrying out their duties as they should.
Then there is the question of communal huts. These huts are not rated, generally speaking, because they are agricultural buildings. Recently the assessment of these huts for rates has been transferred to the Inland Revenue, and they have re-opened the assessments on all sorts of trivial grounds. The Act states that if they are agricultural buildings, occupied together with agricultural land, they should not be charged in rates; but the Inland Revenue authorities quibble over this definition and say that if a communal hut is on a piece of waste land, perhaps 20 or 30 yards from the allotment, it is not actually on the land and therefore rates have to be paid.
If a few bottles of ginger beer are sold to the members, the Inland Revenue authorities say that that is not what the communal hut is meant to be used for, and rates have to be paid. In some cases it is said that certain members, although having gardens of their own, are not actually allotment holders, and the huts must therefore be rated. They are all quibbles, and the law is meant to provide that communal huts belonging to allotments are not subject to rates. The position needs to be clarified and the Minister should make it quite clear to the authorities that communal huts should not be liable to rates.
Something more could be done with regard to the educational system. There are children who are keen, willing and anxious to know how plants are grown, how science works, and what can be done to make a living out of the land. I know that many sehools have gardens, but a great deal could be done to encourage children with a flair for growing things if a little more attention were paid to the subject.
The allotment growers of this country are a very gallant band. They did extremely well for the nation in the war and we should encourage them now for all we are worth. I have mentioned a few of their grouses. Some may be trivial, but they are all real and nagging grouses and I hope that the Minister will be able to do something to remove them, to the mutual advantage of himself and the allotment holders and the production of food in this country.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I want to support a good deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) and, in particular, to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that one of the great needs of allotment holders is a greater sense of security in the allotments they occupy.
I have had quite considerable diseussions with the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with the case of an allotment association in my own constituency, where the allotment holders have been given fairly short notice to leave a site which they have cultivated for some years. They form a group of about 100 active allotment holders, although most of them are old age pensioners, and the tragedy is that there is no hope at present of providing them with aIternative allotment gardens in any area to which they could reasonably be expected to go.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to use his good offices to get a reconsideration of this case or to see if the dismissal cannot be delayed at least for some further period, and in any case to use his good offices to try to secure some alternative for them. If he were to press the matter rather more strongly on the local authority, it might still be possible to get something done. It is a great pity if these men and women who have done a good job are to be turned off at comparatively short notice.

10.56 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I should like to support my hon. Friends in pleading this case. Allotments are a very important part of our domestic, social, and economic life, and there are five million families, I estimate, who could provide most of the things they


want in the way of vegetables, food, pig flesh, pouItry, and honey if they were provided with the opportunity. The Tory Party at one time used to speak of "three acres and a cow." They are more modest than that today, but we should put forward a policy on allotments for every family that wants one.
The lack of security on allotments at the moment, particularly in the large urban areas, is a crying scandal. I have large numbers of persons in my constituency, particularly old age pensioners, with no other interest in life except this interest in growing food and flowers. They are given little encouragement by the Government or the local authorities, and it would be a recognition of the characteristic individualism of the Scotsman if they were given this opportunity.
Dogs are one of the greatest bugbears of the allotment keeper. However intelligent they may seem to be, they cannot read notices. Their intelligence does not run to the height of being able to read notices "Dogs not allowed," and consequently there is little protection from them. The allotment holder should he given the protection of good wiring and siting. Allotments should be a part of town and rural planning.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I must declare a vested interest in supporting this plea. I have cultivated two allotments in the last 25 years, and I have never been out of the first four. I have held the Minister's certificate for the last 15 years. These allotment holders are worthy citizens with the best of intentions. Dogs are a real menace, scratching up plants. I know of a case where an allotment holder threw a stone at a dog and injured it. He was taken to court by the owner and lost the appeal as well. The whole action cost him £75. He lost heart, and the owner lost his dog, and that was no consolation to either of them. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in the interests of this great band of helpful people, to give them all the encouragement he can. The world is getting shorter and shorter of food, and the population is getting larger all the time.

10.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I can certainly express my sympathy with the sentiments that have been voiced on both sides in support of the allotment holders. I would particularly like to thank the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) for raising this subject on which he feels very deeply in common with other hon. Gentlemen.
As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) that provision for allotments should be included in development plans, that is really the same point as the one raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), and I am sure both hon. Members are aware that this matter is in the hands of local authorities to a large extent, and all we can do is to advise them to make the best provision they can when they are drawing up their development plans. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. East recognises the difficulty in such a densely populated area as his constituency, of making provision in the right places near enough to the men's homes. But I will give this undertaking that, although we have had one go without success, we will have another go to see if there is anything we can do to persuade Newcastle to make the provision for which he hopes.
Turning to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge, I was glad that he recognised the help we have given to allotment holders and other domestic food producers in the de-rationing of feedingstuffs. It will be a welcome help to them. Similarly they will be helped by the fertiliser subsidies. I welcome the opportunity to declare that the Government fully support domestic food production. We believe that it is a most valuable movement generally, and that of course includes allotment holders. I quite agree with his sentiment that we are a nation of gardeners. I know of no country I have visited where one sees so many gardens as in this country, and there is no doubt that the act of gardening makes a deep and fundamental appeal to Englishmen
As my hon. Friend said, there is an enormous volume of food produced on


allotments and gardens in this country. On a very rough computation the value today of food supplies and poultry and pigs from allotments and gardens is £44½ million a year. That is a very large amount of food to produce without drawing on labour or other resources of the nation. In addition, there are 6,000 tons of honey and a large number of rabbits. I have no record of the number of goats produced, but there is a certain Goschenlike atmosphere about the production of milk and honey.
Although we are short of allotments in some places, it is good to know that we have something like 1 million extending over 100,000 acres. I agree that the actual act of gardening and growing something on one's own plot of land makes a very deep and fundamental appeal. It has a recreative value and gives a sense of real satisfaction. It might be a good thing, since as my hon. Friend says it is a relief for overstrain, if we had a few allotments in the park where Members of Parliament could dig.
The policy of the Government is to encourage all associations and societies devoted to the work of domestic food production. With my hon. Friend, we feel that they should work towards financial independence. What is wanted is that these societies should be strong, active and independent and that Government grants should not be made a permanent feature in their general structure. Many of these domestic food production organisations have a long and distinguished history running back for many generations before the war when they had no Government grants and through those many years they gave valuable help to their members.
I feel that the principle at which we should aim is that Government grants should only be given to them for specific purposes—such as for starting a new domestic food production movement. For instance, last year we were able to get started the new Council for Domestic Poultry Keepers and we have given them a fairly generous grant for the first two or three years to enable them to get going. Another example is when a domestic food producing movement like the Small Pig Keepers Council assists in the rationing of feedingstuffs. It is 'right that the Government should reimburse them for what they are doing. Those

are specific reasons for giving a grant, but, outside that, we should encourage them to be independent. This has been emphasised by the Brown Report, which was the authoritative document produced by the previous Administration. I assure my hon. Friend that we do not intend to proceed so fast along this line as to upset the existing organisations.
We will proceed in a reasonable and sympathetic way, reducing the grant as we think the organisations concerned are able to stand more on their own feet financially. But I am sure it would not be in the long-term interest of the National Allotments and Gardens Society or of any other domestic food producing organisation to have a permanent Government grant. Government grants are bound to mean some supervision and control by Governments, if only to see that the money is properly spent. That in the long view cannot be a sound thing for an independent organisation of this kind.
Of equal importance, we have a general interest to see how in various other ways we can help. My hon. Friend alluded to the function of local education authorities. It is their proper function to provide an advisory service for domestic food producers, and there is the distinction that the N.A.A.S. are responsible for commercial food production and the L.E.A. for domestic food production, and the N.A.A.S. only come into the sphere of domestic food production for advisory purposes.
We have done a great deal in the last year to stimulate local education authorities to play their full part in this field, and we have promoted one or two valuable conferences with regional further education councils and other educational bodles. A sub-committee of the National Council of Domestic Food Producers is now carrying out a survey of the work done by local education authorities in this field so that we may know just what they are doing and can stimulate those who are, perhaps, not doing all they can.
We have also been able to help by issuing this booklet on the housing of small domestic livestock, which is quite a help to local authorities. It gives some sort of standard and removes the specifications of chicken houses and rabbit hutches out of the sphere of argument


into which it sometimes used to fall. We have been able to help as well by getting a publicity campaign going in the food offices and post offices throughout the country.
I can give the House the assurance that the Government are keenly interested to do all they can to maintain the great movement of food production in this country, and, in particular, in the

context of this debate, the National Allotments and Gardens Society, not only to maintain it at its present size, but to do the utmost nationally to help it develop in the future and be an even more flourishing and productive institution in our national life.

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.